post to follow
What the "do nothing" Obama is up against - from the left and right
Sat, 2010-08-14 10:12
#1
What the "do nothing" Obama is up against - from the left and right
Sat, 2010-08-14 10:13
#2
As Krugman said in his Aug. 8 column: "How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right.
"The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud...(but) there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.
"So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere."
(People looking at the emerging political economy in the 1970s saw this as inevitable. But it has been impossible to turn around the shrinking of government services for a consuming public that has been offered almost endless credit opportunity that would grow the economy just by its consuming. This reader has watched the ascension of the right along exactly these lines since observing the appearance of the Chicago School and the tax revolts of the late 70s in California.)
And now? "We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and 'centrist' Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade.
"In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 per cent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter."
But still the liberal left does not understand this structured condition and can only touch on its manifestations, shallowly blaming an individual for a conditioned ignorance. They'd be in the dark regarding recent political-economic history if it were not for a singularly competent columnist in the NYTimes whose qualifications make him immune to the restrictions against telling it like it is without appearing un-American, the appearance of which would be fatal. And he goes to great pains to show that the problems of America are not amenable to change simply with the election of another president. Shallow criticism in the absence of historical analysis is of course central to explaining their ignorance.
Sun, 2010-08-15 07:34
#3
In her Aug. 14 NYTimes column, Maureen Dowd points to central differences in the way the ideologues of both parties are treated by their respective parties:
"On the Republican side, the crazies often end up helping the Republican leadership. On the Democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at Obama, expressing their feelings of betrayal.
Fox built up a Republican president; MSNBC is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a Democratic one.
We've known that the left was mad at Obama, but now we know Obama is mad at the left. Obama and Gibbs are upset that the lefties won't recognize the necessity of compromise. The left is snapping back: What necessity? You won 365 electoral votes. You have both houses of Congress. And bipartisanship is an illusion.
Democrats are not prepared to go the whole way to appease their ideologues. The Republican leaders on the Hill, on the other hand, seem perfectly happy to go all out."
If only Maureen and a host of other pundits could direct the reader's attention to the manifest ignorance at work: that allows a people to believe ,in the Republican camp, that up is down (medicare is not guv"mint-operated) , and Democratic idealists to believe that Congress doesn't count. But if either Maureen or the president spoke of such widespread ignorance, they would be toast. Only so much truth is allowed. Jefferson had the same problem a couple of centuries back. Although taxes were not yet an issue in that the only way to get elected in most constituencies would be to promise lower taxes...in perpetuity. Perhaps ignorance was not then that widespread.
Sun, 2010-08-15 11:06
#4
Frustrated Mess
Blah, blah, blah ....
That same philoposophy was imported into the Obama cabinet by Obama himself including the architect, and his disciples, of the economic collapse. Your failure of logic, George, is you believe that shit that you're reading as though there are only two POVs at any one time.
Let's talk about one relatively recent, and one current, event. Katrina and the BP Gulf spill. In both instances American looked to government as the only responsible instutution to lead a recovery. The bumbling George W. Bush fucked it up leading to his political fall. Obama turned the entire recovery effort over to the corporate criminals who caused it citing the right-wing lie that only they have the expertise to clean it up as though government lacks the authority to conscript resources and people for a national emergency, He then turned over the authority of the state, police, coast guard, etc ..., to enforce BPs program of repressing images and stories from entering the pubkic domain. Shame on him.
The problem with immersing oneself in the BS of commentators and talking heads is that they inflate somethings and minimize others depending on their bias. The one thing they seldom produce is truth. The US political system is corrupt beyond redemption and Obama is a product of that corruption.
Sun, 2010-08-15 15:11
#5
quote:
"The problem with immersing oneself in the BS of commentators and talking heads is that they inflate somethings and minimize others depending on their bias. The one thing they seldom produce is truth. The US political system is corrupt beyond redemption and Obama is a product of that corruption."
I dunno, FM, Maureen was descrbing the situation, not speculating. And Krugman is on the side of the angels. I'm not ready to give up on them yet...but it sure is time that the American populace looked at itself, eh?
But I must agree with you, that "Obama is a product of that corruption."
And that is all I've been trying to say all along. He's a product, not an instigator.
Sun, 2010-08-15 16:35
#6
Frustrated Mess
But does he know it? I think he does. And if he does, then he knowingly sold false hope to an American public who may never return to the polls. So in that sense, in my estimation, he has done a harm as great or greater than any harm that could have been committed by McCain/Palin. He has done his part to lead a resurgent progressive movement down a false path and left them bereft of leadership and with no clear direction forward. Now the only organized and active grassroots,populist movement is the one with the totalitarian and racist bent. Great.
Sun, 2010-08-15 16:47
#7
That is an incredible liine of reasoning, FM. Worthy of comparison with mainstream political "thought" in America.
Sun, 2010-08-15 21:54
#8
Frustrated Mess
The thing is, George, it is a thought which is more than you've offered us even though you are capable of doing so. But it is also a thought supported by something our own Conservative party rejects: data. The polls show Obama's rainbow coalition is disintegrating. We know, the Obama campaign of "change" organized and won not just hispanic, black, and progressive voters, but poor, alienated, and marginalized voters and people who routinely didn't vote. Many if not most of those people, convinced "they're all the same", won't come back. They are not motivated to vote. And if you still wish to put scare quotes around the word thought, then maybe you could contradict me by demonstrating a progressive populist movement to counter the Tea Party. I couild point to one in 2008.
Mon, 2010-08-16 08:31
#9
You see, FM, again, I'm not arguing that things are not going to hell in a handbasket in Obamaland. But your take on "causality", without mentioning one goddam intervening variable (let alone the thousand that are in effect) is so bluntly beneath even politics 101 that you make a mockery of the word "analysis." You are arguing that this very bright black Harvard graduate is, in effect, putting the gun to his own head. You dismiss with images of excrement any attempt to bring reason and understanding to what is happening in that totally mad environment.
I will continue to list the many, many instances of madness, if that's all right with you, while you go on predictably insisting that he is guilty of them all. :)
Mon, 2010-08-16 08:59
#10
Paul Krugman in the NYTimes today:
"Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.
But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama's deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.
Social Security's attackers claim that they're concerned about the program's financial future. But their math doesn't add up, and their hostility isn't really about dollars and cents. Instead, it's about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.
About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax ("FICA" on your pay statement). But it's also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.
But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger."
Mon, 2010-08-16 15:06
#11
Sven
As Krugman said in his Aug. 8 column: "How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right."
If Obama's standing with the American public was the result of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, he never would have been elected in the first place.
There was a good piece in [url=http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/76972/obama-failure-polls-p... New Republic[/u][/color][/url] the other day which essentially argues that Obama's failure with the public has been a failure rooted in political mistakes, not primarily missteps regarding policy.
Since Obama's election, I have been following aggregate polling data [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approv... (as of today, his favorability rating has sunk to a mere 44%). These data, among others, indicate that the mid-term elections in about 80 days are going to be very ugly indeed for the Democrats...
Mon, 2010-08-16 16:09
#12
Sven, Krugman is talking about the structure of American politics, conditioned by three decades of conservative cant about lower taxes, and now the states and municipalities as well as the federal government are all without funding to maintain the infrastructures on which all depend.
The bloody polls, of course, will not ask the American electorate if they think they are as dumb as bags of hair (I love that one from Bageant) in just going "yeah" at every offer of lower taxes, and now at every populist's peurile rant.
Of course the Democrats are going to lose. How do you "win" putting forward a program of belt-tightening with a public that goddam selfish...and dumb
The conservatives have finally got you folks exactly where they wanted you way back when Irving Kristol converted from Trotskyist to neo-con in the following of Leo Strauss. Now EVERYTHING can be privatized because the public piggy bank is broke...their objective all along.
Tue, 2010-08-17 01:15
#13
And the Obama Democrats are going to fix things. Sure they are.
The Americans had their chance for change with Ralph Nadar and they blew it.
Why do Americans hate Canadian Health Care?
You read that right.
The spokesperson for the most powerful man in the world suggested that creating a world-class, freely accessible medical system is just like dismantling a multi-billion dollar defence apparatus.
A couple of quick points of comparison might be helpful here. Canadian health care costs about $180 billion per year, give or take a few billion. That's about as much as the U.S. spent last year procuring 10 new major weapons, including a few new jets, a nuclear submarine, and something called a "Space Based Infrared System". Meanwhile, the American government spends 23 per cent more than the Canadian government per capita on health care, even though 46 million U.S. citizens have no coverage at all. No one gets a bill for dying in Canada.
Oh, and we live longer.
If they simply stopped accidentally funding America's real enemies in Afghanistan, they would have more than enough money for a deluxe model Canadian-style health care system.
It should have been a simple enough question, seeing as the president declared several times during the campaign that, "I don't just want to hold our teachers accountable; I want to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable."
Instead of being accountable, Gibbs was gullible. He has allowed himself to be taken in by the rhetoric of the American right. And by falling into that trap he has done a grave disservice to the people of the United States.
In calling the "Canadian system" unrealistic, he might as well be saying it's a socialist bureaucratic labyrinth complete with death panels. He is using the U.S. right's language, frame, and message.
But why does the American right hate our health care system so much?
You see, when you are the most powerful country in the world and you've run out of countries to invade (or you're saving up to invade the next one), you need to find another enemy.
The American right has a few favourite go-to enemies: gay rights activists, gun control advocates, civil rights activists, and, most recently, health care reformers. All are regular victims of right-wing misinformation and smear campaigns.
Republicans see the issues these people campaign for as wedge issues with which to divide the American people. The further they divide voters, the simpler the electoral math becomes. And the emotion that divides the best is fear.
Instead of re-enforcing that fear, Gibbs should learn the facts.
He might want to also remember the "professional left" is what got him and his boss their jobs at the White House. And they'll need those same people to get re-elected.
That Gibbs advanced the very same misguided impressions of our system that Republicans and Tea Party activists endorse won't help him with those voters, organizations, or what he might call the "amateur left."
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/2040-why-do-americans-hate-canadian-...
Tue, 2010-08-17 07:54
#14
The shepherds of the left of Canada, like those of America, avoid the obvious position of the voting flocks with equal aplomb. Ah, for a return to the situation facing Teddy Roosevelt who could just ride out and vanquish the corporation singlehandedly.
Tue, 2010-08-17 08:49
#15
In all of this, the worst condemnation is reserved for those who find no solidarity and nothing worth rescuing from a collapsing society built on delusions which have evaporated. My suggestion George is to pull up a chair and grab the popcorn. No rescuers present themselves and none are coming. It is better to avoid throwing oneself into the futile and disappointing search for solutions. Better to revaluate things and consider instead that the situation is not as dire as all of that, in fact it is excellent. Every step towards total control renders power more despicable, and spreads through an ever increasing hatred of power the desire to see them obliterated. The solution may very well occur to the masses in time. I place better odds on the delightful prospects of a mass uprising affecting change than on waiting for a savior to reanimate the dead.
Tue, 2010-08-17 09:35
#16
Paul Krugman in the NYTimes today:
"Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.
But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama's deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.
Social Security's attackers claim that they're concerned about the program's financial future. But their math doesn't add up, and their hostility isn't really about dollars and cents. Instead, it's about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.
About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax ("FICA" on your pay statement). But it's also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.
But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger."
Paul Krugman is obviously a very smart guy, but these comments are a little off-base. Take a look at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
especially the graph about two-thirds of the way down the page ("Chart A"). The DI fund is projected to be out of money by 2020, the HI fund by 2030, and the OAS fund by 2040. Depleting the funds implies benefit cuts or contribution increases or both. Somebody entering the workforce today has every right to be concerned about what benefits, if any, they will get in return for their contributions.
This is not to say that the problem is insoluble, but the sooner people get cracking on it the better.
Tue, 2010-08-17 10:39
#17
Paul Krugman in the NYTimes today:
"Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.
But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama's deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.
Social Security's attackers claim that they're concerned about the program's financial future. But their math doesn't add up, and their hostility isn't really about dollars and cents. Instead, it's about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.
About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax ("FICA" on your pay statement). But it's also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.
But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger."
Paul Krugman is obviously a very smart guy, but these comments are a little off-base. Take a look at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
especially the graph about two-thirds of the way down the page ("Chart A"). The DI fund is projected to be out of money by 2020, the HI fund by 2030, and the OAS fund by 2040. Depleting the funds implies benefit cuts or contribution increases or both. Somebody entering the workforce today has every right to be concerned about what benefits, if any, they will get in return for their contributions.
This is not to say that the problem is insoluble, but the sooner people get cracking on it the better.
You overlooked this paragraph, apparently:
"But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama's deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age."
You see, Krugman is interested in saving it as a meaningful program for the old age of working Americans. He is being "political"...a brave and noteworthy act in a nation controlled by economic prostitutes from the right.
Tue, 2010-08-17 10:46
#18
In all of this, the worst condemnation is reserved for those who find no solidarity and nothing worth rescuing from a collapsing society built on delusions which have evaporated. My suggestion George is to pull up a chair and grab the popcorn. No rescuers present themselves and none are coming. It is better to avoid throwing oneself into the futile and disappointing search for solutions. Better to revaluate things and consider instead that the situation is not as dire as all of that, in fact it is excellent. Every step towards total control renders power more despicable, and spreads through an ever increasing hatred of power the desire to see them obliterated. The solution may very well occur to the masses in time. I place better odds on the delightful prospects of a mass uprising affecting change than on waiting for a savior to reanimate the dead.
If words saved the day, Sj, you would march at the head of the parade. However you nevr follow up criticism with anything meaningful in the way of recommended political or economic action. You "place better odds on the delightful prospects of a mass uprising affecting change than on waiting for a saviour to re-animate the dead?"
A mass uprising of liberals? You would NOT want a mass uprising of those other fellas. :)
I'm afraid I'm still attached to democratic reforms, hopeless as that may seem from the armchair in the bleachers.
Tue, 2010-08-17 11:37
#19
Maybe instead of berating the ineffectual sloths hereabouts you should hit the streets with your sandwich board.
What would be your slogan, George?
Tue, 2010-08-17 11:44
#20
You overlooked this paragraph, apparently:
"But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama's deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age."
You see, Krugman is interested in saving it as a meaningful program for the old age of working Americans. He is being "political"...a brave and noteworthy act in a nation controlled by economic prostitutes from the right.
I didn't overlook the paragraph, George. And Krugman being political? Not a surprise.
I too think the program should be saved. However, when there are clearly benefit cuts or contribution increases in the pipeline already, taking a "nothing to see here, move along" attitude may be unwise. In other words, I agree with (what we assume are) his goals, but I think that addressing the problem sooner rather than later is a better course of action.
Tue, 2010-08-17 11:51
#21
Maybe instead of berating the ineffectual sloths hereabouts you should hit the streets with your sandwich board.
What would be your slogan, George?
I'll tell about my activism at the moment (won't bore you with a history) if you promise to tell me what you have been up to, "on the ground" so to speak. This isn't an "after you", sir al-Q, just an assurance, were I to go ahead and fill your challenge in the lists.
By the way, "ineffectual sloths" does not describe my target in that post...you employ the tactic of populists everywhere in raising a mob in reaction. I see a very effective sloth (singular) at work, not offering one damned, meaningful idea for the political project of a hopeful left. Very effective.
Tue, 2010-08-17 11:57
#22
ygtbk:
"I too think the program should be saved. However, when there are clearly benefit cuts or contribution increases in the pipeline already, taking a "nothing to see here, move along" attitude may be unwise. In other words, I agree with (what we assume are) his goals, but I think that addressing the problem sooner rather than later is a better course of action."
I believe Krugman is saying that it's best to save Social Security in its current form. I don't see that as his resigning it to a second-place concern. Quite the opposite.
Tue, 2010-08-17 14:21
#23
I see a very effective sloth (singular) at work, not offering one damned, meaningful idea for the political project of a hopeful left. Very effective.
When you consider the enfeebled discourse of the mainstream left with its nauseating puff piece articles denouncing this or that, one has to be mindful of the fact that the conclusions are especially absent from a movement that cannot even manage to escape the paradox it creates for itself, let alone offer anything of lasting significance to meet the want of our time. Under the pretext of affecting change and progress from within the present societal construct, its finest effort merely saves the causes by potentially slowing the rate of deterioration, until the next election cycle and the lie holds sway once again under yet another guise. What presents itself as a political system in need of direction is actually an uncontrollable fiasco of an orchestra, in which an incompetent succession of conductors have been found to be woefully incapable of putting an end to the ruinous decibels inflicted upon the audience.
What makes revolt a more desirable outcome than being led inexorably to the same end by another route is the faint prospect of finally coming to terms with the reality of a situation that will not go away on its own, or by wishing it away at the polling station. Reestablishing contact with one another outside of the imagery and facades created for our attention, discovering and maintaining the fantastic rhythms of a new way of localized communal life through whatever means necessary. To recognize that the objectionable things and landscape which surround us can be re-occupied and superimposed by a panorama of our own choosing. To begin to learn from each other once again after the forced fed stupor of the past century. To prepare for the inevitable, which is to meet and turn out using any means necessary from our communities, those who have brought one catastrophe after another upon us, yet still insist on leading us to the next. When the happy faced faux-leftist salespersons from the same system discuss amongst themselves how to temporarily lessen the disastrous effects of their collective program of control without breaking the system entirely, we should realize that it and they are already broke and beyond repair, beyond even recycling.
Tue, 2010-08-17 14:33
#24
Ah, for a return to the situation facing Teddy Roosevelt who could just ride out and vanquish the corporation singlehandedly.
Teddy had to do something because if he had not brought the greed to heel the masses would have risen up. You seem to utterly dismiss the mass movements of the era both anarchist and socialist and the volatility of the population given the abject poverty that unfettered capitalism had left the majority of the American people in. But carry on with history as the story of single white men slaying dragons.
Tue, 2010-08-17 14:39
#25
Wonderful imagery, a return to Eden.
But not a call to arms, right, Sj. Just a "revolt." A big crapshoot, not with dice but guns, presumably?
Not buying.
Tue, 2010-08-17 14:47
#26
Lead us George, for you sound as if you know the secret.
Tue, 2010-08-17 14:48
#27
Ah, for a return to the situation facing Teddy Roosevelt who could just ride out and vanquish the corporation singlehandedly.
Teddy had to do something because if he had not brought the greed to heel the masses would have risen up. You seem to utterly dismiss the mass movements of the era both anarchist and socialist and the volatility of the population given the abject poverty that unfettered capitalism had left the majority of the American people in. But carry on with history as the story of single white men slaying dragons.
Kropy, I used Teddy to demonstrate the ridiculous current idea, hereabouts, that those very conditions still exist, and that a president today has the same chances as Teddy to bring change, singlehandedly. You know, "the situation facing" him? All the ducks in a row? A hugely different America? Read American/Canadian labour history for four years. Know the fella.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:01
#28
Maybe instead of berating the ineffectual sloths hereabouts you should hit the streets with your sandwich board.
What would be your slogan, George?
I'll tell about my activism at the moment (won't bore you with a history) if you promise to tell me what you have been up to, "on the ground" so to speak. This isn't an "after you", sir al-Q, just an assurance, were I to go ahead and fill your challenge in the lists.
By the way, "ineffectual sloths" does not describe my target in that post...you employ the tactic of populists everywhere in raising a mob in reaction. I see a very effective sloth (singular) at work, not offering one damned, meaningful idea for the political project of a hopeful left. Very effective.
Sir al-Q: "Lead us George, for you sound as if you know the secret."
I don't know about secrets, but I am not going to be dismayed by someone using "us" or "we" in such a challenge. That's the stuff that Steve feeds out to his populist following, demonizing the opposition, putting down those who DO try to point out his failings. Isolating individual thought prepratory to destroying it. And, hell, all I do is try to point to the failure of Conservative ideas in the community, things people can read at the breakfast table...about how they destroy the very underpinnings of the community.
No, I'll just wait for a less facile reply to my request - what are YOU up to these days.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:04
#29
Maybe instead of berating the ineffectual sloths hereabouts you should hit the streets with your sandwich board.
What would be your slogan, George?
I'll tell about my activism at the moment (won't bore you with a history) if you promise to tell me what you have been up to, "on the ground" so to speak. This isn't an "after you", sir al-Q, just an assurance, were I to go ahead and fill your challenge in the lists.
By the way, "ineffectual sloths" does not describe my target in that post...you employ the tactic of populists everywhere in raising a mob in reaction. I see a very effective sloth (singular) at work, not offering one damned, meaningful idea for the political project of a hopeful left. Very effective.
Sir al-Q: "Lead us George, for you sound as if you know the secret."
I don't know about secrets, but I am not going to be dismayed by someone using "us" or "we" in such a challenge. That's the stuff that Steve feeds out to his populist following, demonizing the opposition, putting down those who DO try to point out his failings. Isolating individual thought prepratory to destroying it. And, hell, all I do is try to point to the failure of Conservative ideas in the community, things people can read at the breakfast table...about how they destroy the very underpinnings of the community.
No, I'll just wait for a less petty or facile reply to my request - what are YOU up to these days.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:07
#30
Lead us George, for you sound as if you know the secret.
George would prefer to enchant us with the sort of guaranteed satisfaction that only a necrophiliac could offer, if only we would take our turn in climbing aboard to pretend for awhile.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:13
#31
Kropy, I used Teddy to demonstrate the ridiculous current idea, hereabouts, that those very conditions still exist, and that a president today has the same chances as Teddy to bring change, singlehandedly. You know, "the situation facing" him? All the ducks in a row? A hugely different America? Read American/Canadian labour history for four years. Know the fella.
The bolded words turn your post into a snide dismissive post. Please stop conflating your arguments based on your supposed academic prowess. Your arguments either stand on their face or they do not. I believe your views are trivial MSM pap with little analysis but I did not say that I instead tried to speak to the point you raised. Dismissing my view because you are better read is probably not true and certainly rude and classist.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:15
#32
And, hell, all I do is try to point to the failure of Conservative ideas in the community, things people can read at the breakfast table...about how they destroy the very underpinnings of the community.
And what, the rest of us hereabouts don't?
You don't say much of anything, George, other than "Let Barack do it."
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:17
#33
Lead us George, for you sound as if you know the secret.George would prefer to enchant us with the sort of guaranteed satisfaction that only a necrophiliac could offer, if only we would take our turn in climbing aboard to pretend for awhile.
What a truly odious fellow you are in the clinch. Gaia only knows the depths to which you might descend, even without the aid of an emetic.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:19
#34
Sir al: "And what, the rest of us hereabouts don't?"
There's that us" again...still gathering the lynch mob.
No, Sir al, just you.
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:24
#35
Kropy, I used Teddy to demonstrate the ridiculous current idea, hereabouts, that those very conditions still exist, and that a president today has the same chances as Teddy to bring change, singlehandedly. You know, "the situation facing" him? All the ducks in a row? A hugely different America? Read American/Canadian labour history for four years. Know the fella.
The bolded words turn your post into a snide dismissive post. Please stop conflating your arguments based on your supposed academic prowess. Your arguments either stand on their face or they do not. I believe your views are trivial MSM pap with little analysis but I did not say that I instead tried to speak to the point you raised. Dismissing my view because you are better read is probably not true and certainly rude and classist.
Your presumption that someone going back in years to Teddy's relative, FDRs time, did not understand the conditions THAT STILL PREVAILED WHEN HE WAS BORN, was just too tempting, Kropy. I interviewed labour leaders in my honours year. But join the lynch mob. Did you bring the rope?
Tue, 2010-08-17 15:35
#36
Hey,fellas, I didn't call in the mod cops or anything. Don't stop now! This was turning out to be a fine demonstration of the humanitarian attitudes prevailing here, and the mods tolerance... for just about anything. Although for the newbies, such behaviour has never acted as a warm invitation to try a different approach, injext a different message into the prevailing, human-centered dialogue.
Tue, 2010-08-17 16:13
#37
You're looking to us George for suggestions which defy even your mentor Bageant, to improve upon a system that must continue to trample everything in its path as it moves forward with increasing speed, one conditioned and motivated by instinct in order to outrun its own collapse.
Tue, 2010-08-17 17:50
#38
I interviewed labour leaders in my honours year. But join the lynch mob. Did you bring the rope?
So who the fuck cares? I have had in depth political conversations with two different Sask. NDP Premiers and it doesn't seem to have made me a social democrat. I must say though that Red Al did tell some great political war stories stories.
You attack attack attack and then do the, "oh woe is me people are always picking on me routine." Passive aggressive doesn't actual work on me so try another approach.
By the way I think that your analogy to the mob etc. is not only uncalled for but also completely over the top.
Tue, 2010-08-17 18:41
#39
Look Mom, I'm a mob!
Tue, 2010-08-17 18:58
#40
Wouldn't you like to be a mobster too...be a mobster...be, be a mobster. (sung to the tune of the old Dr. Pepper commercials)
Tue, 2010-08-17 19:31
#41
The wielder of depraved imagery still at it eh?
Tue, 2010-08-17 19:34
#42
I interviewed labour leaders in my honours year. But join the lynch mob. Did you bring the rope?So who the fuck cares? I have had in depth political conversations with two different Sask. NDP Premiers and it doesn't seem to have made me a social democrat. I must say though that Red Al did tell some great political war stories stories.
You attack attack attack and then do the, "oh woe is me people are always picking on me routine." Passive aggressive doesn't actual work on me so try another approach.
By the way I think that your analogy to the mob etc. is not only uncalled for but also completely over the top.
You come on this thread to piss on moderate opinion. Don't expect to be treated differently, you silly ass.
Tue, 2010-08-17 19:45
#43
Nice. That's right out of the pages of Cletus Carnegie's How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.
Well played George.
Tue, 2010-08-17 19:49
#44
Nice. That's right out of the pages of Cletus Carnegie's How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.
Well played George.
You! Speaking of lost friends? C'mon alQ. That sick little play including the necrophilia wasn't enough, apparently, to turn your stomach. Come and piss on this thread if you wish, but bring your umbrella.
Tue, 2010-08-17 19:50
#45
August 17, 2010, 2:33 pm
News Corp. Donates $1 Million to G.O.P. Governors
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Over at the Media Decoder blog, Brian Stelter writes that the parent company of Fox News Channel has donated $1 million to the Republican Governor's Association.
Tue, 2010-08-17 20:07
#46
Cueball
Sir al: "And what, the rest of us hereabouts don't?"
There's that us" again...still gathering the lynch mob.
No, Sir al, just you.
Up thread I saw you were critical of "Stephen Harper" for "demonizing the opposition". So, what is it precisely you are doing here?
Tue, 2010-08-17 20:07
#47
That sick little play including the necrophilia wasn't enough, apparently, to turn your stomach.
This is the thanks I get for trying to inject a little humour into that stale tautology of yours.
Tue, 2010-08-17 20:25
#48
Sir al: "And what, the rest of us hereabouts don't?"
There's that us" again...still gathering the lynch mob.
No, Sir al, just you.
Up thread I saw you were critical of "Stephen Harper" for "demonizing the opposition". So, what is it precisely you are doing here?
Maybe he thinks I'm Stevie-boy. That or a teabaggin' Sarah Palinite. Or maybe a knight-errant. It's not easy to tell.
Tue, 2010-08-17 20:41
#49
From the NYTimes today:
"In a number of releases and statements, Republican House and Senate candidates challenged Democrats like Mr. Reid to make their positions clear on the construction of a mosque and community center about two blocks from the site of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City.
"Ground zero is hallowed ground to Americans," Elliott Maynard, a Republican trying to unseat Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat, in West Virginia's Third District, said in a typical statement. "Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?"
Republicans said Mr. Obama's defense of the right of the developers to pursue the project showed that he was out of touch with average Americans.
"It is very troubling to see President Obama again turning a deaf ear to the thoughts and concerns of a majority of Americans," said James Renacci, a Republican candidate in Ohio's 16th District, who said people at a recent public meeting were furious about the mosque proposal.
The remarks were a rare instance in this campaign season when Republicans have strayed from a focus on economic issues in their push for substantial gains in the House and Senate in November. The intensity of their attacks showed that they do not appear worried about the risk of being seen as intolerant or not supportive of the right to freedom of religion.
Some leading Democrats said it was the president's role to stand up for constitutional rights in the mosque dispute."
Tue, 2010-08-17 20:46
#50
Sir al: "And what, the rest of us hereabouts don't?"
There's that us" again...still gathering the lynch mob.
No, Sir al, just you.
Up thread I saw you were critical of "Stephen Harper" for "demonizing the opposition". So, what is it precisely you are doing here?
That is precisely what I could ask you, Cue. But I just knew you could not resist the chance to play word games with the other boys on the block. Anyone fighting back at the pack is fair game, right? What a bullying bunch of clowns, playing the virtuous defenders of human rights.
What a joke of juveniles.
Tue, 2010-08-17 21:59
#51
Joe Bageant takes a firm position in "Understanding America's Class System"
"You never hear them say it, but neo-conservatives understand that they have a mean streak down inside. They also know if they want to share in the national plunder, they must win hearts and minds. They must look pious and sound right while lying through their teeth and picking our pockets. In other words, they have an astute grasp of American politics and business -- which are the same thing, of course.
Most educated American liberals, however, believe simply being progressive makes them, by default, the nation's saviors -- morally and intellectually right in all things. As proof, they read more and, allegedly, are more open minded than most conservatives, except when it comes to their daughter dating a redneck named Ernest who lives in a trailer court behind the strip mall. They are certainly among the educated class in a country known for its lousy schools and a dull, sated and unquestioning public. Education and access to education are now our fundamental class delineators. Higher education is now for the privileged. And that privilege, almost regardless of profession or career, is a future that depends on government. Liberal or conservative, it matters little. In fact, this privileged class votes Democratic more predictably than the working class, Hispanics or Blacks.
So when educated liberals look up from their copy of The Nation or the Jon Stewart show, they behold a chilling sight: Beefy mobs waving teabags and demanding tax cuts to help pay for new schools and bridges, Sarah Palin emerging from the ashes of the McCain campaign to become the high priestess of the uncurried tribes, with a Mormon named Glenn Beck exhorting millions of fundamentalists to seize the country. They feel that something has gone terribly wrong with America.
Immediately they conclude that it is the American people's fault through their backwardness, incomprehension and misdirected anger, and that maybe it serves them right for not rallying behind the flying progressive standard. (I've been plenty guilty of this myself over the years, and am now a recovering American liberal, well on my way not to conservatism, but toward a strumpetocracy, government by strumpets. It's a real word, Google it.) Not that the progressive flag was actually flying; American liberals threw down their standard 40 years ago in the rush for comfortable technical, teaching and administrative jobs in government, universities and non-profits. "Ah yes," they wailed, the people have let us down. They are absolutely disgusting!" liberals agreed. And they still agree. Read the comments on Huffington Post or Daily Kos.
Or look at the arrogance of Barack Obama's characterization of American heartlanders "clinging to God and guns." Which we do. However, implicit in his statement was that both God and guns are indicators of an ignorant loser class. When opponents scalded him for his remarks, he justified them by pointing out he had said, "what everybody knows is true." Meaning everybody in his class, the educated liberal class. Hard to believe their predecessors were the point men and women for the Scopes trial, the eight-hour day, unions, anti-McCarthyism, Cesar Chavez, Negro civil rights."