Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
Geronimo

Geronimo

By Robert M. Utley
$30.00

Appetite for Self-Destruction

Appetite for Self-Destruction

By Steve Knopper
$19.76

more items

 
Report

Why Do Conservatives Hate America?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 12, 2009
White House / Pete Souza

Conservatives may not like Obama, but they ought to salute his achievement. It is, after all, an honor for the country as well as the man.

By Eugene Robinson

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world’s most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation’s leader—elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority—as unworthy of such recognition?

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

OK, I know, it’s just some conservatives who’ve been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as “Hanoi Jane” behavior. Others who haven’t taken leave of their political senses—and are familiar with the concept of manners—responded to President Barack Obama’s unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Some of Obama’s most strident critics, however, just can’t give it a rest. They use words like farce and travesty, as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Let the rejectionists fulminate and sputter until they wear themselves out. Politically, they’re only bashing themselves. As Republican leaders—except RNC Chairman Michael Steele—are beginning to realize, “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to be a winning slogan.

More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation—by otherwise sane commentators—that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.

If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn’t matter whether Obama won it or not. But of course it means much more. The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world’s approval. For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama’s credit—and to our country’s.

The peace prize comes as Obama is in the midst reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining—and some advocates of a pullout are hoping—that the award may somehow limit the president’s options. But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far. He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations—or that he once called Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Threading that needle is not made any easier or harder by the Nobel committee’s decision.

What I really don’t understand is the view that somehow there’s a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say—as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky-high. Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy. He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children. He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.

The only reasonable response is McCain’s: Congratulations. Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he’s already set it for himself.
   
Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DaveZx3, November 4, 2009 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Sepharad, November 3 at 9:21 pm #

“DaveZx3, Maybe this thread remained civil because those posters most afflicted by terminal incivility simply didn’t post. Not enough potential for point-by-venom”.

I was always taught that when the fangs come out, the snake is severely threatened.  During a debate, I am encouraged when I see the venom.  Probably means I have a real good point, and fang-man has no real answer.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, November 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

What Obama is doing is what #41 did which is to have a unilateral approach then get enough countries (for whatever reasons) to join in the slaughter and “peace keeping” in someone else’s land. It costs somewhat less and looks much better from a propaganda stand point. The UN will follow post facto as it was done in 1990-? for Iraq. [The no fly zones were unilaterally and illegally put in place by the USA/UK then the UN allowed it after the fact.]

Report this

By Sepharad, November 3, 2009 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, Maybe this thread remained civil because those posters most afflicted by terminal incivility simply didn’t post. Not enough potential for point-by-venom.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, November 3, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Joe:

I’ve served in a couple wars myself. C’mon on man. It’s satire. Its a play on what was said of those who disagreed with Bush and the policy in Iraq. Not meant to be taken literally. Only to provoke thought.

Report this

By Joe, November 2, 2009 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a Conservative, if I hated America, I would not have risked my life for 23 years in the military.

Disagreeing with the Administration policies is not hate, is plain use of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Nanci Pelosi, when talking about those who protested former President Bush, called them patriotic.

Using the same logic, protesting President Obama’s policies, is the highest form of patriotism.

We are Americans, we just so happen not to agree with socialistic philosophy and policies.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 31, 2009 at 6:28 am Link to this comment

It’s been a very good discussion. Thanks to all who participated. You give me hope.

In the mean time, everyone should visit this link

http://www.webofdebt.com/

There you will find an enourmous amount of information and insight into our current financial problems and where it comes from. They also have a discussion forum, articles, interviews, and a model economy wiki they are building. The whole this is facilitated by the author. And if you haven’t read Ellen’s book, I highly recommend it. We’ve deferred to the master money in lieu of understanding monetary policy for far too long and we’re paying the price now. Nothing will get better until we fix this one thing. If you want your democracy back, I think you’ll find this forum to be about the best starting point there is. FYI: its nonpartisan.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

By Sepharad, October 28 at 3:35 am #

“Two really excellent posts worth preserving:

Dave Zx3’s (Oct. 24, 12:09) and No_Man’s_ Land (October 27, 12:10am)

I’m both enjoying and learning a lot from this thread—mainly thanks to DaveZx3, ardee, NightGaunt, No_Man’s_Land, Anarcissie and occasional proddings from Inherit the Wind. These exchanges are a clear victory (may there be many more) for the well-thought-out golden mean over over-hyped EXTREME foaming-at-the-mouth SHRILL-SHILLING that sometimes overtakes TD sites. Thank you all”.

Sepharad,  I learned a lot from this thread also.  I think all it takes to have a civil discussion is for the participants to act civil.  I have no idea why this thread seemed to remain so civil, when so many others sink into the mud rather quickly.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 28, 2009 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

Thank you for the link MarthaA, a good place for information.

Conservatives hate all the changes that have been made over the years that lessen their power and weaken the country in their opinion. What Patrick J. Buchanan would call “enumerating rights not defined in the Constitution.” He ignores the 9th Amendment that concerns all those rights not mentioned, because they knew they couldn’t and didn’t need to.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 28, 2009 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

MarthaA:

No I didn’t, but thanks for the link. looks like a lot of good articles in there. I’ll go in a read some.

I’ve been reading “Modern Money Mechanics” from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and looking back through some books and websites to glean some understanding of our monetary system in history. If you’re interested, there is a very insightful book by Ellen Hodgsen Brown, J.D., called “Web of Debt” that also outlines much of this. Ron Paul, who is possibly the only anti-war republican in existence (and has been all along), has also made this part of his platform.

I see our rigged system of financial servitude as the subject where conservatism and liberalism meld into the singularity of genuine populism. If we are ever to realize genuine change for the people of this country, we must end the game of musical chairs that is our, privatized, fractional-reserve, fiat, monetary system.

Our monetary system, because it is numerically impossible to ever pay back the interest to the banks (the money doesn’t exist), the government is continually forced to expand social programs to a growing number of people in debt, else they face the pitchforks and torches. Additionally, the only way to pay that interest is to drain the coffers of other nations. With a currency that is not created from debt (ie Lincoln’s Greenback) we minimize the need for social spending while removing much of the impetus for aggression abroad. In the mean time, our currency becomes worthless.

The current system is a recipe for our demise and servitude. Reforming it could possibly prove our greatest challenge in all of American history.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 28, 2009 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land, October 27 at 10:12am

Lots of good quotes, did you get them from Information Clearing House???

Report this

By Sepharad, October 28, 2009 at 12:35 am Link to this comment

Two really excellent posts worth preserving:

Dave Zx3’s (Oct. 24, 12:09) and No_Man’s_ Land (October 27, 12:10am)

I’m both enjoying and learning a lot from this thread—mainly thanks to DaveZx3, ardee, NightGaunt, No_Man’s_Land, Anarcissie and occasional proddings from Inherit the Wind. These exchanges are a clear victory (may there be many more) for the well-thought-out golden mean over over-hyped EXTREME foaming-at-the-mouth SHRILL-SHILLING that sometimes overtakes TD sites. Thank you all.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 27, 2009 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land, October 27 at 10:12 am #

Great post No_Man.  Honestly.  Hits the nail on the head.  If we can’t listen to these guys, why do we bother at all?

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 27, 2009 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

We would all do well to recall the satirical allegory of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” written in 1900. It stands as a critique of the country’s first real populist movement and its attempts to break the monopolies enabled by the gold standard (The Yellow Brick Road).

FYI: The Scarecrow represents the well intentioned Kansas farmer who did not understand the monetary system or how it impacted him.

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/oz.html

Seems a common theme through history:

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
—Henry Ford

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
—Thomas Jefferson

“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”
—Andrew Jackson

“The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.”
—Abraham Lincoln

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson…The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis.”
—Franklin D. Roosevelt

Now go to the US Mint website and try to buy a $1 coin with $1 Federal Reserve note and see how far you get.

We’re off to see the wizard…

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 24 at 12:09am

DaveZx3 said: “My opinion:  You must quickly isolate or eliminate degenerative and destructive behavior based on norms established in a democratic forum.  You may leave a big hole where you cut them out, but what will grow back into the hole will be a lot healthier than what you just destroyed.  Sounds cruel, but it is the natural process.  “squash” it.”

ThomasG’s answer:  Your opinion is relative to the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Movement from the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, that deindustrialized the United States for cheap labor and short-term profit, borrowed and spent the United States into bankruptcy, financialized the U.S. Economy, and with toxic mortgage, credit and insurance securities created the biggest toxic financial bubble the world has ever known, that destroyed the U.S. Economy and the economy of the World, and required TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of communal resources of the masses of the Common Population of the United States to clean up the mess and stabilize private capital as a result without benefit to the masses of the Common Population as a result of their being forced into socialized responsibility for privatized benefit; I agree with you that this type of degenerative and destructive behavior must be isolated and eliminated. Personally, I do not feel that the hole where this type of behavior is cut out will be a problem and that democracy that is in the greater good of society will grow back into the hole and will, as you say, be a lot healthier than what is destroyed.

The process that you describe as a natural process, does not, to me appear to be cruel and the “squash” appears to me to be necessary to the greater good of the United States and the masses of the population of the United States.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 25, 2009 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Dave,

If you haven’t seen it in a while, you should revisit “Network” from 1976. Here are a couple clips that might spark some memory. A true classic and more relevant now than ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV7jQJfcHHg

Report this

By ardee, October 25, 2009 at 9:09 am Link to this comment


Don’t tell the people whose taxes and donations went overseas that this money was in vain and went to ruthless dictators.  Don’t tell the families of guys and girls who died in war that their deaths were in vain because the war was unjust, propping up some ruthless dictator.  Don’t tell the people with big cars and homes that it was all so we could steal the other countries resources to subsidize their big cars and homes.  Don’t tell us that it was all so we could get a better return on our 401Ks or so the corporations we work for could earn obscene profits.

You can’t tell us those things, because we have been doing what we have been doing for over 100 years or more.  If the American government, American people and American corporations have been truly this corrupt and self-serving and decadent, there is truly no help for us.

But that is exactly what we must do, again and again until the message sinks home. We have an advantage I think in that we have truth on our side.

Because obviously many people knew all about it and did nothing.  Sure there were some protests in the street.  But the protesters grew up and took over high positions, and nothing changed.  Everyone is free to run for office and make change, but no change.  We have elected one of the most leftist administrations in our history, perhaps, but no change in sight.

The seductiveness of luxury, even false and plastic luxury at the cost of a life of indebtedness to your credit card has taken our leaders and ourselves. When one becomes a public figure suddenly ones message becomes subverted by the entrance to the powerful and the wealhty. I would use MoveOn as a perfect example of such, and my old friend Marcos Molitsas as well. The three founders of MoveOn, Joan, Wes and Eli, were already rather wealthy when founding MoveOn, internet millionaires abound here in the Bay Area. Thus one might think them immune from the blandishments of the status quo.

Yet, like Marcos, they found fame a potent seducer, as much as is money frankly and thus became far more middle of the road in order toprotect their position as,  and access to, the rock stars of politics….

By the by, calling this administration as leftists speaks volumes about your own orientation and nothing about Obama’s.

If we are that evil, why can’t a presidential level politician get on camera and come right out and tell us how evil we have been.  Is there never going to be any real change, ever? 

Silly question, showing that “Dave’s not here”..wink No “Presidential Level politician” can attain such status holding such views. Look at the one genuine truthful candidate who speaks to such, Ralph Nader. Blacklisted for all intent and purpose, no media access to speak of, no entrance to the debate, limited access to the people. This system has built in protections to be sure.

But as to whether there can ever be change I vote an emphatic yes. You and I share limited beliefs, but we do share some, as well as sharing a history of combat in VietNam. We continue to talk, we should be continuing to act in our communities as well, though I confess to a semi retirement after over forty years of such activities.

No empire lasts forever, nor will this one.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 25, 2009 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3:
’... You can’t tell us those things, because we have been doing what we have been doing for over 100 years or more.  If the American government, American people and American corporations have been truly this corrupt and self-serving and decadent, there is truly no help for us.

Because obviously many people knew all about it and did nothing.  Sure there were some protests in the street.  But the protesters grew up and took over high positions, and nothing changed.  Everyone is free to run for office and make change, but no change.  We have elected one of the most leftist administrations in our history, perhaps, but no change in sight.’

Every modern empire has ascribed noble motives to itself, in which the people seem to have generally believed at least for a while.  People believe what they want, and most people want to believe their leaders are wise and good, regardless of the evidence.

Mr. O is not, in my view, any sort of leftist; he has continued most of Bush’s policies, especially the bailouts and the wars in middle east.  But because he looks different from Bush, has a different style, and can form complete sentences, he seems to have the world in love with him. 

I don’t think anyone with leftist ideas can presently get anywhere near the presidency.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 25, 2009 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

ardee,
A complex question indeed, and I am 100% sincere when I say I am totally baffled. 

The USA is very generous.  We have sent trillions of dollars in aid to poor nations.  We have sent armed forces to suffer and die in war for disadvantaged and poor nations.  Many, many other countries have done the same.  (don’t jump on me about this war thing yet)

Don’t tell the people whose taxes and donations went overseas that this money was in vain and went to ruthless dictators.  Don’t tell the families of guys and girls who died in war that their deaths were in vain because the war was unjust, propping up some ruthless dictator.  Don’t tell the people with big cars and homes that it was all so we could steal the other countries resources to subsidize their big cars and homes.  Don’t tell us that it was all so we could get a better return on our 401Ks or so the corporations we work for could earn obscene profits.

You can’t tell us those things, because we have been doing what we have been doing for over 100 years or more.  If the American government, American people and American corporations have been truly this corrupt and self-serving and decadent, there is truly no help for us.

Because obviously many people knew all about it and did nothing.  Sure there were some protests in the street.  But the protesters grew up and took over high positions, and nothing changed.  Everyone is free to run for office and make change, but no change.  We have elected one of the most leftist administrations in our history, perhaps, but no change in sight. 

If we are that evil, why can’t a presidential level politician get on camera and come right out and tell us how evil we have been.  Is there never going to be any real change, ever? 

And all this goes for many, many other countries also.  It really comes down to the idea that the human race may be just absolutely evil.  I don’t believe it, but how can a level of conspiracy needed to keep up all this evil going on for year after year after year, Democrats, Republicans, whatever. 

Regarding war.  It is terrible.  I spent a year in the central highlands of Vietnam.  It was terrible.  The people begged for protection against the VC.  You had the feeling you were helping them, but in retrospect it was a bad deal for everyone.  But you are lured in, and once in you look at the faces, and it is hard to desert them because you know their fate.  It is like Afghanistan, we would love to get out, but there will be blood flowing as soon as we leave.  You feel like helping people, but war is not the answer.  But if it was that simple, just pull out.  Get out and never, ever, ever get in again.  But how much do you want to bet that the US will be involved in another country within 5 years.  It is not all just evil.  Here again, if every war and everyone who waged it was just plain evil, then there is no help for humanity, because war is a condition that is going on around the world perpetually,  It is a permanent state of mankind.

I don’t know any of the answers.  I am as sincere as I can be.  I don’t know any of the answers.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 25, 2009 at 6:25 am Link to this comment

Dave:

“Short of that, I think we need an alien invasion to unite.”

Do not underestimate the power of dysfunction to unite a people. People are being replaced by technology, a trend likely to accelerate as the information age grows in sophisitication. Access to goods and services is being choked off from the mid section down. Eventually, it reaches a tipping point. I don’t think we are there yet, but you are starting to see the bubbles form at the bottom of the pan. And, as we kneel down to sacrifice the last vestiges of our livelihoods to the gods of credit, believing the good life to be just around the corner again, there will be nothing left to socialize or redistribute. Those holding the money this time will be beyond our reach. They will cap off the American population like a tapped oil well and move on to more fertile pools. Sit back watch the show. They aren’t ready for ideas just yet.

Report this

By ardee, October 25, 2009 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

The key to the second is “Fair share of the resources.”  Certainly this is an inalienable right, but why does poverty and starvation persist in some 3rd world countries?  Climate is a factor, and ruthless, corrupt local politics also.  Is the corporate world to blame?  I do’t know, I am asking.  Why do some countries need a perpetual handout?

A complex question deserves an equally in depth answer. In the interest of time and space I would only note that most I think know the answers to this question already, Dave as well I believe.

There is no one single answer to the question of why some nations founder and some thrive but there are clear truths. How many live under puppet govts., installed by the Western nations for political and economic reasons, in some cases replacing democratically elected leaders with military juntas and dictators who loot and pillage their own for personal gain while mouthing the correct platitudes when called upon?

How many nations have had their resources brutally stolen and been recompensed with starvation, disease and extreme poverty, all to benefit an artificial level on some stock market ticker somewhere far away?

Certainly some nations simply have the odds stacked against them, whether by poor judgment or poor climate or lack of resources. I do not blame all the ills of this world on the few mega transnational corporations who control so many govts, our own included. But even these too arid, or too wet, or too lacking in natural resource or whatever nations could be made far better places through the concerted efforts of those who have so much and give so little.

I have not tried to give an in depth response here, only to rehash that which we all, or most of us, already know, that we are a selfish and greedy world in desperate need of a sea change.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 24, 2009 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment

“We must be strong to our ethics and convictions and the reasons as to who we are. It can be done but it won’t be easy”.

“Extremism would gain little foothold, I think, in a world wherein all members had a fair share of the resources, where few starved and many went on to higher education and decent jobs”.

I fully agree with the above statements by Night-Gaunt and ardee.

I would add to the first statement, We have to reestablish and refine the concept of who we are, because it could be the unifying idea we need to incorporate the changes we need.  Short of that, I think we need an alien invasion to unite. 

The key to the second is “Fair share of the rescources.”  Certainly this is an inalienable right, but why does poverty and starvation persist in some 3rd world countries?  Climate is a factor, and ruthless, corrupt local politics also.  Is the corporate world to blame?  I do’t know, I am asking.  Why do some countries need a perpetual handout?

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 24 at 12:08 pm #

“DaveZx3—I think we should be very cautious about likening people or ideas to diseases.  That kind of rhetoric can be turned easily and quickly to oppressive or murderous purposes, as one can observe in the history of 20th-century Europe”.

I fully understand your valid point. 

Ideas are never oppressive or deadly unto themselves, but the implementnation of faulty ideas is dangerous and potentially deadly. 

On the other hand, people with faulty ideas can recruit others through the use of varied methods, many being devious.  I don’t think it is rhetoric to liken this to a type of cancer, a rogue cell contaminating others.  It is a common analogy.

I agree that the use of words such as “squash” or “cut out” may not be useful to my argument.

I don’t think a cancer cell, macro or micro version, wants to be a cancer cell.  So I agree with a non-violent remedy in all cases.  There is never a need for oppression, violence or tyranny no matter the circumstance.  But does society not need to protect itself from extreme anti-social behavior?  How do you do it and retain freedom? 

I think humanity is floundering in their invented relativism, in which everyone gets to have their own personal reality.  These are cancerous ideas, because without unity, no significant redeeming activity can be undertaken. 

People need an idea that they can rally around in unity, but there is no idea forthcoming.  It is why there is such wide-spread belief in a redeeming god, but even that is relative to the culture in which one is born, so in fact becomes a disunifying factor.

America was a unifying concept (flaws and all) for close to 2 centuries, but is apparently losing its charm as it is dismantled, brick by brick, by the international movement.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 24, 2009 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Very true Ardee which is why the would be tyrants and those who want to follow such would not like to be put out of a job and a life. So they will fight tooth and nail, bombs and propaganda to get their way. By hook or by crook they will. That is the danger. For us the danger in fighting them is to succumb to their actions and eventually their motives in order to win. By any cost, use any measure for the desired result. [Ends justify the means.] Nietzsche warned us of this eventuality if we chose that course.

We must be strong to our ethics and convictions and the reasons as to who we are. It can be done but it won’t be easy.

Report this

By ardee, October 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

In any discussion of the many problems besetting our world, including terrorism and extremism of all types, one key element is the widening disparities between the haves and the have-nots.

Extremism would gain little foothold, I think, in a world wherein all members had a fair share of the resources, where few starved and many went on to higher education and decent jobs.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

The idea of “false specieation” or turning your enemy into something other than the human they really are. They must always be looked upon as we look upon ourselves. Even if they don’t do that to us. We don’t want to become our enemy do we? So actually do—they embrace the idea of unbridled hatred and anything goes to get what they want.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 24, 2009 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

The idea of “false specieation” or turning your enemy into something other than the human human they really are. They must always be looked upon as we look upon ourselves. Even if they don’t do that to us. We don’t want to become our enemy do we? Some actually do—they embrace the idea of unbridled hatred and anything goes to get what they want.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 24, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3—I think we should be very cautious about likening people or ideas to diseases.  That kind of rhetoric can be turned easily and quickly to oppressive or murderous purposes, as one can observe in the history of 20th-century Europe.

In any case, once we get into violence, we get the state again, because the state is the most efficient social mechanism for producing violence and profiting from it.  And the new state will encourage the same sort of traits and behavior the old state did: sociopathy, psychopathy, timeserving and parasitism, because those are the normal products of violence and fraud.

Hence I think non-violence is a crucial element in getting rid of those behaviors.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

By No_Man’s_Land, October 23 at 10:02 pm #

“I think the goals of the WB/WTO/IMF are little more self-serving than socialism. They operate outside or inspite of the state. I think their vision is market control, but also monetary control. They will maintain social stability insofar as it keeps enables the power structure to remain and solidify thier position”.

I accept what you say.  I try to quit using simple terms to describe complex behaviors, but I always seem to fall back on it. 

The wb/wto/imf want to control the world on behalf of their master(s), in my opinion, and I don’t think they care what word you and I use to desribe the method of control.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 23, 2009 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, October 23 at 7:57 pm #

“You sound like you’re becoming an anarchist.  That’s all to the good, but I’m worried about the “squashing” part.  The problem with squashing powerful social forces and institutions is that one usually has to get up a similarly powerful institution to squash them.  As No_Man’s_Land points out, where Marx leaves off, Animal Farm begins.  Old-time anarchists used to say “Smash the state!” but when indeed states were smashed, as plenty of them were in the 20th century, it turned out that they were usually replaced by a worse state.  I think we need to work out methods of resisting oppression and tyranny which do not rely on force.  That’s the other side’s thing”.

I could endorse anarchy, at least the definition which is simply “absence of political authority”.
At least that would bring about personal freedom and sovereignty.  But, as you and NO_Man point out, what comes next?  In my opinion it is personal responsibility, honesty, integrity and truth which comes next.  If humans have no capability for it, then there’s not much left worth talking about except which tyranical form of government should be used to enslave the beasts, and should they be allowed to live beyond the age of 30? 

My use of the word squash seems to be a poor choice, but the question is:  Is there a point at which the behavior of an individual human being or group of human beings becomes so destructive to his society that society has the right or obligation to permanently eliminate that person or group? 

I would say the answer is yes if the destructive activity rises to the level of being a threat to continued survival of the society. 

When people in a society degenerate into destructive behavior, the behavior can be spread to others.  Gangs recruit and get out of control if left to flourish.  Terroist groups recruit and become worse threats when left to flourish.  Tyranny recruits and seeks to establish itself and perpetuate itself.

I will liken these to cancer.  A cell becomes cancerous, and cancer recruits.  It wants the whole body.  So in a perfectly legitimate defensive manner, we seek medical help, which attempts to destroy the cancer and help the body survive. 

When my tomato plants got the blight this year, I had to pull them down, take them in the woods and burn them.  I also replaced all the dirt in the hole.  A thorough removal of the blight was necessary, as one tiny spore can cause the same disease next year. 

Watch what a family has to go through when one of the kids comes home with lice.  Or if your car starts getting some rust in the sheet metal or frame.

All of these examples are based on completely eliminating the degenerative element before it destroys the whole body. 

The question becomes what to do with humans who become degenerative and destructive?  It is a very serious question and issue. 

If everything is relative, then degenerative, destructive behavior cannot be judged.  Their reality might be different from my reality. 

Because society cannot come to a consensus about the acceptable boundaries of social human behavior, degenerative and destructive attitudes and behaviors abound all around the world. 

It is like a body full of disease of every sorts without any access to medical care or healing.  What is likely going to be the immediate future of that body?

My opinion:  You must quickly isolate or eliminate degenerative and destructive behavior based on norms established in a democratic forum.  You may leave a big hole where you cut them out, but what will grow back into the hole will be a lot healthier than what you just destroyed.  Sounds cruel, but it is the natural process.  “squash” it.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 23, 2009 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

ardee, October 21 at 5:59am and Night-Gaunt, October 20 at 11:32pm,

ardee said: “Sad you do not see what a clown you are.”

Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST clowns from Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, as clowns have been seeing others as clowns, while as clowns they oversaw the deindustrialization of the American Economy for cheap labor and short-term profit and went on to financialize the American economy, create the biggest financialized bubble from mortgage, credit and insurance securities that resulted in the collapse of the financialized bubble that Right-Wing clowns engineered that brought down the economy of the United States and the economy of the World, and has to date cost TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of socialized/communal resources of the masses of American taxpayers to prop up the value of private capital in an effort to stabilize the economies of the United States and the World that is the biggest scheme of CORPORATE COMMUNISM for PRIVATIZED BENEFIT in the history of the World.

When Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST clowns are treated as if they are something other than clowns, foolishness should be expected, but it wasn’t, and foolishness was received in the form of destruction of the U.S. Economy and the economy of the World together with the loss of TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of socialized communal resources.

It is too late now to do anything about governance by Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST clowns, such as Goldwater, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, together with their familiar spirits, toadies and media echo-chamber, but it is not too late to be aware that governance by incompetent self-serving Right-Wing clowns do not provide appropriate governance and that we, the American people, must be vigilant and not allow Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST clowns and incompetents to reinfest the U.S. Government and restart the whole dumb show all over again; this is the mission of Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST governance, to start the whole dumb show that destroyed the economy of the United States and the World all over again.

The masses of the population of the United States must not allow the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST clowns that for short-term profit and cheap labor, looted the nation for TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS to, in the name of triumphant exceptionalism, start the whole dumb show all over again and commit the resources of TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS more to have to be spent to rectify the moral hazard of their greed in the name of saving the U.S. Economy and the World.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 23, 2009 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3:

I think the goals of the WB/WTO/IMF are little more self-serving than socialism. They operate outside or inspite of the state. I think their vision is market control, but also monetary control. They will maintain social stability insofar as it keeps enables the power structure to remain and solidify thier position.

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes it’s laws.”—Mayor A. Rothschild

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3:
‘In my previous post I said:

But any forces, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, christianity, islam, or anything else, that seeks to make the whole world over to their image through tyranny, force, lying, cheating, stealing and misleading at any costs, needs to be squashed immediately.

To make sure the sound bite guys don’t come after me, I want to make perfectly clear:

I am not saying that these movements need to be squashed. I am saying that forces legitimately or illegitimately representing these movements, that use tyranical methods to institute change, need to be squashed.  ...’

You sound like you’re becoming an anarchist.  That’s all to the good, but I’m worried about the “squashing” part.  The problem with squashing powerful social forces and institutions is that one usually has to get up a similarly powerful institution to squash them.  As No_Man’s_Land points out, where Marx leaves off, Animal Farm begins.  Old-time anarchists used to say “Smash the state!” but when indeed states were smashed, as plenty of them were in the 20th century, it turned out that they were usually replaced by a worse state.  I think we need to work out methods of resisting oppression and tyranny which do not rely on force.  That’s the other side’s thing.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

Of course you know that the UN/IMF/WB are mostly funded and controlled by the USA. And it is the kind of corporate socialism that Mussolini & M. Freidman would understand and use. So what you should really fear is some form of fascism that is creeping about the earth and right here by those including Obama & Cheney endorse under the “Free Trade” mantle. See a problem here? I do. The corporatists are taking over everything while they cut our freedoms short and propagandize many who should be against them instead of acting for them.

That is the problem we have today. Next for the corporations? The power of a state from embassies (any of their outlets) to sovereign rights of their boarders to their own military’s. I wonder when it will happen and who will be the first?

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 23, 2009 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land, October 23 at 8:29 am #

Yes, I will include coersion, but I am going to leave cooptation out for now till I get a chance to look it up.  Sounds too much like copulation. and I’ve been f_____d enough lately.

Seriously, it is not my intent to leave out any self-serving, egotistical, arrogant, money-grabbing, power-grabbing methods devised in the minds of man.

But that is not to say that there will not be diffeerences of opinion.  If someone really believes something, don’t say they are misleading you when they say it.  It is not a lie if you truly believe it.  Don’t marginalize or deny the opinions that are not your own.  That is equally as bad as anything on the list above. 

Regarding your post to anarcissie:
“My reading was that he (Marx) saw it (capitalism) more as a tool to enable what he truly revered”. 

I agree with that reading, and in another thread, I said that the ultimate goal of the IMF/WB/WTO was a single system of world socialism.  I was pooh-poohed because the entities in question exhibit themselves as extreme capitalists. 

Yeah, and grandma turned into the big bad wolf just at the right time.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 23, 2009 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

However DaveZx3 our past presidents including the most recent four are also mass murdering bastards too. You can ask most anyone in Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq and many other places where the hand of the USA is there metering democracy out of the barrel of a gun. The CIA favors using the MQ-1 “Predator” to get their men and anyone who is in range of their Hellfire missiles.

Too often I have found Conservatism to be very much so on human rights and the Bill of Rights. They complain too often about people asserting too many rights not specifically enumerated with in them. Which is why we have the 9th Amendment. The Regressive wants to take time back to before the Bill of Rights. Like women’s equality, other sexual expression, others not white and male having the same rights etc. Conservatives and Regressives have fought against that every step of the way and wish it would go back to what it was before that.

We must be able to allow others who have ideas and modes of living to do so—as long as they hurt no others in their practice. Like slavery, sacrifice, rape, robbery etc. But we don’t operate that way. Drug laws, sex laws, speech laws we have and our prisons are full to bursting. More so than in China! What does that tell us?

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 23, 2009 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3:

“But any forces, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, christianity, islam, or anything else, that seeks to make the whole world over to their image through tyranny, force, lying, cheating, stealing and misleading at any costs, needs to be squashed immediately.”

Do you inlcude coersion and cooptation into that mix?

Also sometimes, “force” can be as passive as leaving someone “out of the loop” so they continue on a path that gives you advantage. The practice employed by credit card companies of perpetually reducing the time span between notification and due date in order to maximize late charges and raise rates comes to mind. Its kind of like letting someone drink something you know is poison because you want their house. Sure, ultimately they are responsible for their own actions, but failing to enlighten in the face of known ignorance is just as corosive.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 23, 2009 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

Arnicisse:

“In the Communist Manifesto he wrote very poetically about how it overturned everything, and that might sound like disparagement, but Marx liked the idea of revolutionary change.”

I think he liked the idea of revolutionay change that led toward an ultimate communal utopia. He pulled no punches with capitalism’s ability to commodify the human experience. My reading was that he saw it more as a tool to enable what he truly revered. Its a major sticking point I have with his theory: that once the means have been seized, we all live in happy concert. Where he leaves off, Orwell’s Animal Farm picks up.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 23, 2009 at 4:42 am Link to this comment

Ardee, 

You can be free to say you like Mao.  I am free to be very, very wary of your upcoming actions, or as you put it, “getting my panties in a bunch”. 

If you are the usher at the local movie theater, and you start yelling, “FIRE, FIRE”  for no reason, then you have presented a problem.

You used your freedom to rile the natives unnecessarily.  You produced a stampede which could endanger lives.  You produced nervousness and panic.
You may claim it was all in the name of freedom.  But if I own the movie theater, I am going to fire you anyway. 

If you said your favorite philosopher was Mao, it would roll off my back.  If the president of the US says it, my panties would get in a bunch.  If his director of communications says it, my panties are ready to go, not because of freedom, but because of the questions that come up about the future of continuing to live, as No_Mans_Land says, “our way of life”

When you are in the WH, keep your favorite philosophers to yourself if they happen to be Mao or Osama Bin Laden or Hitler or some other murdering son of a bitch. 

On the other hand, it is good to know up front what is motivating those people.  It helps us to stay extra, extra vigilant.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 23, 2009 at 4:19 am Link to this comment

In my previous post I said:

But any forces, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, christianity, islam, or anything else, that seeks to make the whole world over to their image through tyranny, force, lying, cheating, stealing and misleading at any costs, needs to be squashed immediately.

To make sure the sound bite guys don’t come after me, I want to make perfectly clear:

I am not saying that these movements need to be squashed. I am saying that forces legitimately or illegitimately representing these movements, that use tyranical methods to institute change, need to be squashed. 

Christianity and Islam were not capitalized purposely to indicate I was talking specifically about the illegitimate counterfeits of these religions.  Neither of these religion’s mainstream philosophies encourage the use of tyranical methods to take over the world.  But some radical, counterfeit factions certainly may and do. 

I am not being disrespectful of these two major religions.  I might not agree with them, but I am not disrespectful.

Report this

By ardee, October 23, 2009 at 3:21 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 23 at 5:29 am

Freedom for you, but others, not so much huh? If we are to be truly free then one is free to express an opinion about the writings of Mao Tse Tung without you getting your panties in a bunch..but, sadly, freedom seems a bit subjective and comes with a large fence around it.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 23, 2009 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, October 23 at 12:10 am #

“Very few and simple laws that you could defend yourself in court, no arcane and hugely complicated legal system. Very limited gov’t. Very limited corporations. How does that sound DaveZx3?”

Sounds very good Night-Gaunt.  Sounds like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  How do we get it done? 

By No_Man’s_Land, October 22 at 9:16 pm #

Part of the problem is that many terms have become interchangeable in the modern US lexicon. Socialism equals communism equals dictatorship. Capitalism equals freedom equals democracy equal Chrsitianity. Really what people are trying to say is “my way of life.”

Great point, No_Man’s_Land. 

In the world of sound bites, we have to judge and categorize quickly the expressions of others in order to summon up the appropriate defense mechanism to protect ourselves with, or, as you put it, to protect “our way of life.”

So, if you hear the word socialism you can quickly summon up visions of tyrannical oppresions, and if you hear the word capitalism you can instantly summon up greedy, immoral rich white guys in three piece suits. 

A big chunk of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is “having your way of life” and being free to preserve or “conserve” it, without that action being seen by others as threatening their way of life. 

That is fundamentally my brand of conservatism.  It is as simple as that.  And it is not that I insist on keeping “my way of life” absolutely unchanged for eternity.  It is that I want to be the one that helps decide what changes geet in. 

This brand of conservatism is basic within all people, I believe.  If I am living in a socialist community of my own choosing and I like it and want to preserve it, then I could call myself a conservative socialist, and I would not be wrong.  But it sure would screw up the sound bite guys. 

I resent statements such as those my Bill Maher that we are all stupid, cannot agree on anything, so we need to be dragged to it against our will.  Those are the statements that will scare the hell out of me. They do summon up those visions of tyranny.
Michael Moore seems to have that attitude also, that the American people are stupid and need to be dragged to the truth.  I do not need them to define truth for me. 

The mentality that some progressive change is so important that it can be undertaken using any means necessary, such as the philosphies of Mao, whose philosophies seem to me to be summed up by his statement, “power comes from the barrel of a gun”  These statements are scary to me. 

So when Anita Dunn, WH communications director, says, in a high school graduation speech, that one of her two favorite poliitical philosphers is Mao, that is scary.  But the progressive WH sees no problem, and that is scary also.  Mao is not my way of life.  Is he yours? 

Why should I not suspect that “my way of life” is in danger of being taken away by others, negotiated in secret while I am sleeping. 

The essence of the freedom we are all searching for, is to wake up in the morning and everything is still of us, by us and for us; “our way of life”. 

But any forces, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, christianity, islam, or anything else, that seeks to make the whole world over to their image through tyranny, force, lying, cheating, stealing and misleading at any costs, needs to be squashed immediately. 

Major change needs to come slowly and peacefully, with each step being carefully thought out and explained and debated thoroughly.  No 1500 page bills written in back rooms and passed in great hurry, thank you.

America needs some changes, no doubt, but first we all have to agree that it will be done in a controlled, rational manner, without the partisan, polarized attitudes flaring up every second. There has to be great tolerance exhibited in order to enter an era of great change.  This is not happening.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 22, 2009 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

“No gods, no masters.”-Emma Goldman (?)

Which sums me up. We can work together but I have my space and you have yours, DaveZx3. You stay out of my body and I will stay out of your church. Fair?

Conservatives want the clock to stop, and Regressives want to turn the clock back to somewhere they find comfortable. At least in the social and economic realm.

I like Michael Moore‘s want to add democracy to the capitalist mix. That and a governor so it won’t go out of control and destroy everything. Marx considered that capitalism left alone would destroy itself in an orgy of greed and selfishness. He thought it would open up for the people to take over the means of production and put humanism back into the machine of industry and commerce. We certainly need to now.

Socialism to give us all an equal footing and a safety net and settle disputes, capitalism to invigorate the economy, and Anarchism for the individual to live their own lives. Very few and simple laws that you could defend yourself in court, no arcane and hugely complicated legal system. Very limited gov’t. Very limited corporations. How does that sound DaveZx3?

Report this

By BILLJ, October 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Conservatives only hate America when their profits are threatened by citizen
action which would increase education, assist elderly, cut or limit consumption of
harmful (but profitable) substances, provide meaningful insurance choices, etc.
Conservatives ‘love’ America when it is exploiting third world nations, sending its
armies to secure its overseas investments, etc. The rhetoric and pseudo-
philosophy is simply a distraction; the conservatives ‘love-hate’ relationship with
America is driven purely and simply by its desire for profits.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 22, 2009 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

I think Marx greatly admired capitalism.  In the Communist Manifesto he wrote very poetically about how it overturned everything, and that might sound like disparagement, but Marx liked the idea of revolutionary change.  Capitalism, for him, was the first major step away from slavery and feudalism.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 22, 2009 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

Part of the problem is that many terms have become interchangeable in the modern US lexicon. Socialism equals communism equals dictatorship. Capitalism equals freedom equals democracy equal Chrsitianity. Really what people are trying to say is “my way of life.”

I think any discussion of Marx and communism must include his arguements juxtaposed with how they were implemented in the 20th century. Marx definitely had it out for capitalism but also declared it a necessary step in the evolution of economies. To him, capitalism would create the technology that would ulimately negate the need for a working class. Then, and only then, when the proletariat had been squeezed out of access to goods and services, would they rise up and sieze the means of production. The Bolsheviks, the Chinese and all the other 20th century “communist” states skipped the capitalist step between feudalism and communism. Their working classes were never been rendered useless. Inevitably, they remained in feudalism. Only now are we seeing them drift into the ranks of capitalism.

While I’m fairly certain that Marx’s reference to the proletariat uprising was a envisioned to violent revolution with the subsequent communist state, “the means of production” seized may be nothing more than a return the family farm or locally owned economies that recycle investment in themselves with systemic balance.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 22 at 2:25 pm #

You said:
1.  As to socialism and gods, I don’t see any direct correlation, positive or negative, between belief in one and belief in the other. 

2.  How does one put these contradictions together?  I conclude that the mere profession of a religion is not in itself of much significance, so that the religious coloration of one political category or another is not of much consequence.

3.  In principle, no one knows what’s really real, and you might as well believe anything you like. 

I say:
95% of the worlds population are having religion stuffed down their throats daily by their buddah, preist, teacher, pastor, rabbi, mullah, jetti master, medicine man, atheist and intellectual humanist neighbor.  Interacting with your local religious guru is like talking to a socialist.  If you say something they don’t like you get marginalized and eventually disposed of. 

(Don’t get me wrong, there are some legitimate, unselfish men and women of God who do not fit into the categories I am speaking of here, like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther possibly, very few in this day and age) Also, Remember what I said before, God and religion are completely separate.  One is real the other is an invention of man. 

So people actually have to try as hard as they can to believe whatever stuff they are fed by their local stargazer, without any real comprehension of it, out of the sheer will of survival within their peer group.  And of course if you are in a fanatical muslim group, you will probably have to strap the bombs on, so you have to try and muster up some serious belief for that stuff.  Or just get stones. 

Why are there contradictions you say?  Because people don’t really believe what they believe.  They only go along because there is somebody there with a gun at their head, or something much less dramatic but equally persuading.  Maybe just peer or family pressure. 

Control of the masses.  Every political, economic and religious divison seek it.  And everything falls under the headings of politics, economics and religion.  And politics and economics fall under the heading of RELIGION.  And RELIGION falls under the heading “The Diverse Fabrications of Mankind”

It is all about people attempting to control other people for their own gain.  But separate from it all is the the GOD men speak very softly about. 

So you can have your socialism, or whatever religion you profess.  Who is the god of socialism, Marx?  Anita Dunn loves Mao, one of the gods of communism and murder. 

I for my part am going to pass on any of the gods of religion, including the political religions and the economic religions as well as the anti-religion religions.  I became very tired of putting any faith at all in the philosophies of lying, stealing, cheating, man. 

As for your last statement, #3.  That is the battle cry of the humanist.  Everything is relative, so whatever feels good do it.  I always loved the saying, “your reality is not my reality”. 

Unfortunately for many, reality is reality, and it never changes.  What was real yesterday is real today.  Reality is not subject to the whims of men.  If you happen to not know what is real, I am sure you will find out at some point.  I think everyone does.

And just to not piss everyone off, I predict that 99.999% of mankind will come to a happy conclusion, because that GOD that men speak softly about knows how to redeem all of humanity, not just a couple. 

Sorry, I know talking like this is dangerous in these forums.  I promise to try not to do it again.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 22, 2009 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

As to socialism and gods, I don’t see any direct correlation, positive or negative, between belief in one and belief in the other.  It could be that most people who profess belief in socialism decline to profess belief in a large organized religion, but that might be an aspect of their relation to conventionality.  Someone who claims to be a socialist is unconventional enough to be a member of a tiny minority.  In any event, while it is conventional to profess belief in a monotheistic religion, at least in the U.S., one sees little evidence of the belief being strong enough to cause the believer to follow the tenets of the religion.  For example, 70% of Evangelical Christian voters, supposedly followers of a god-man who explicitly and authoritatively preached nonviolence, pacifism, and charity, voted in 2004 for George W. Bush, a war freak, imperialist and known liar where the lies had fatal consequences.  I could criticize Muslims even more severely, but that has been done for me many times over.  How does one put these contradictions together?  I conclude that the mere profession of a religion is not in itself of much significance, so that the religious coloration of one political category or another is not of much consequence.

It is true I have become rather hostile to most organized religions as I get older, but I’m probably just getting cranky.  In principle, no one knows what’s really real, and you might as well believe anything you like.  And religions have provided us with a lot of high-powered graphic art, sculpture, music, drama and architecture.  They’re not totally useless.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 22, 2009 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

“If I have one major problem with socialism, it is that it tends to be practiced by individuals with very little revere for our Creator, if any.”-DaveZx3

No that is a stereotype that is out there. Marx himself had no problem with belief and religion. He just wanted a better place for people so that religion would not be their only solace. Where the bad times would end for them. There are many religious socialists in the world. It is the reich wing that promulgates that fiction of Atheism and Socialism are always together. I am an Atheist and an Anarchist-Socialist. I have no problem with other peoples beliefs. Just so they don’t force it on me like in school. Taught as part of history is fine as long as it is warts too are shown.

Most of us want the same, or similar things, as you do. However with property taxes you are just a renter and your house can be taken if you can’t or don’t pay them. I think we need capitalism and corporations but they must be under our control. For corporations we should get back to what was done originally. Evaluate them every 5 years to see if they are helpful to society. How many of them here now would pass that test? How many would have their charters revoked? How many would fight that idea? Do you think that with our present system we could make it real again? Maybe. The health insurance companies anti-trust immunity is threatened. We shall see if they are put under the law again after 64 years.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 22, 2009 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

By Sepharad, October 21 at 11:54 pm #

“DaveZx3—Take heart. I think you are on the right track with the Romans”

Thanks Sepharad.  One of these days I will get the courage to make that a main topic of one of my posts.  Why not? No sense in not waking everybody up now. A lot of people are starting to get it anyway. 

ardee,

I know words matter, but words have diffent meanings to different people.  Besides, deception reigns supreme in the world.  Socialism is the intent of the single government movement, no matter what they are doing today. 

Anarcissie,

“For example, by telling people that socialism means “everything controlled by the government”.  So that’s the problem—unless we’re just genetically programmed to run around in packs and troops like baboons knocking each other off, in which case the situation would seem to be hopeless”

The situation is not hopeless, people will actually come to their senses about the important issues.  In this age of instant communication, you can no longer get away with blatant lies.  You can know things by the results that they produce, and deep down inside we all want the same results, so ideas that do not produce the results we (you and me) want will fall by the wayside. 

I actually have few problems with a just socialism as a democratic system.  I am not a fanatical capitalist, nor do I have any money.  I just want to own my house and property and have a decent paying job and the freedom to bring up my kids and grandkids in the way I see fit.  Its really not too much ask. 

I did have to scrounge around in onliine dictionaries to dig up that definition of socialism, kind of just to make a point that it is out there, and the uselessness sometimes of relying on words to convey the meaning you hope to express. 

If I have one major problem with socialism, it is that it tends to be practiced by individuals with very little revere for our Creator, if any.

Squeezing God out of schools has not done us any good.  No school kids went to school with automatic rigles and no school kids committed serial killings the whole time I was in school, unless they hushed it up, which I doubt.  We have not produced better children since we kicked God out of public schools and started with this bizarre evolutionary theory instead.  Even hard-core scientists are retreating from this mathematically impossible theory.  How the schools continue to teach it as truth is beyond me.

I know you probably do not believe in God, and I know there is a problem with religion, but God and religion are two extremely different things.  You can believe in one and not the other.  And anyone is free to make up a religion according to their own opinion.  That is what makes religion dangerous and unpopular to many.  But do not judge God, or decide whether or not there is God, by what you see in religion.  That is the mistake that people make.

The founders separated religion from government in the constitution.  They did not separate God from the government.  This is why congress is still free to start out each session with a prayer to God.  They are not establishing a religion by acknowledging the Creator.  We are not establishing a religion by putting “in God We Trust” on our coins. This is a very important distinction.

If anyone attempts to set up a government in this country which outlaws God or disallows free expression regarding God, most Americans will not allow it.  The public has been pushed to far to the left regarding this issue, and they are about to strike back in a big way.   

Its a terribly imperfect and unjust world, and we spend way too much time fighting each other instead of living and letting live.  But Americans are smart, and they have good tendencies deep down.  America is going to pull through all the bull shit that is thrown at them, I am sure.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2009 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

The reason I think the idea of socialism (my definition) is important, and should not be obscured, is that I think a major problem with our social arrangements—which we have just now been talking about—is that too many people want to give up their autonomy, their power over their own lives, to great leaders and noble institutions—to act like children, in short.  If it were not for this tendency, the acquisition of power over others in any form would become much more difficult and constrained.  One of the ways people give up power is by expecting an elite to provide them with working capital, jobs, and direction.  When this doesn’t work out well, and of course much of the time it doesn’t, they go hunting for another great protector which I probably need not name.  Needless to say, the same sort of aggressive, exploitive people who populate the first elite tend also to populate the second; in fact, as I’ve mentioned, they’re often the same identical people.

Rationally and objectively, the proper course of action for intelligent social beings would be to combine in organizations where they were more or less equal.  But their culture, after thousands of years of slavery and other forms of inequality, evidently teaches them otherwise.  For example, by telling people that socialism means “everything controlled by the government”.  So that’s the problem—unless we’re just genetically programmed to run around in packs and troops like baboons knocking each other off, in which case the situation would seem to be hopeless.

Report this

By Sepharad, October 21, 2009 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3—Take heart. I think you are on the right track with the Romans.

Report this

By ardee, October 21, 2009 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 21 at 4:54 pm

Words matter. How else to communicate and be understood. Your definition of corporations ambitions as socialist clouds the intent of your post, in my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling what is fascism as fascism.

There has never been a pure socialist state, nor a communist one either for that matter. The power winds up in the hands of an elite few and thus becomes a distortion of the true meaning of that form of governance. There are, on the other hand, some great examples of the use of the principles of socialism in parts of govts here and there, principally but not limited to,  Scandinavian nations.

Not to belabour the point but your Webster’s definition of socialism is itself misleading, though I do not accuse you of such, in that it fails abysmally to note that govt is actually run by and for the people.

Perhaps you might reread Anarcissies excellent effort once more.

I am sorry if I seem more than a bit insistent here, but I am a fan of both communication and socialism.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 21, 2009 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Wow!!  I guess I did offend people.  Apparently there are already 14,567 books written describing the Fourth Reich as everything from George Bush to Homer Simpson. 

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

You guys have convinced me.  I will quit using the word “socialist” to describe the IMF/WTO/WB, even though I am sure that they are a part of a group with serious aspirations to set up a single socialist democratic government to benevolently run the world. 

I am sure that their plans call for state ownership of the means of production and distribution, state run health care, state run education, state run media and whatever else. 

This fits into my dictionary definition of “socialism”  but I will quit using it because I do know that it is not the only definition.  Besides, it is too tame for these cut-throats.

I know you would like me to use capitalist, but these guys have clearly shown that they only use capitalist tools as a means, and share none of the few redemptive qualities that capitalists actually do have.  So that is out.

I want to use stronger words, anyway.  I thought of fascist and that is probably good and accurate, but overused and nobody takes you serious when you say it.  NAZI would be good, but it contains the word Socialist, so I am back to square one.  Despotism is always a good one, but I think it lacks the quality of “BIG” that this world entity will require. 

I finally hit on calling them the “Fourth Reich”  Now I am not saying they are German, but the first two reichs were not essentialy German either.  In fact, I think they were more Roman.  This name definitely exudes the concept of world empire, and it does have that grinding sound that lets you know everything is not on the up and up.  Anyway, I don’t think that it should offend too many people.

So, as far as I am concerned, the new name for the entity which the IMF/WB and WTI operate under is called the “Fourth Reich”, and they can be known as reichists, and their movement is reichism.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3—The problems with describing “everything controlled by the state” as “socialism” is that (1) you no longer have a word for ownership and control of the means of production by the workers, which is an important concept, and (2) the idea of having everything controlled by the state goes back to the Pharaohs and the Inca Empire, and is properly called totalitarianism (in Mussolini’s definition, “Everthing within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”)  Socialism (my definition), however, was invented in the 18th and 19th centuries, because it was not until then that an important part of the population had started to form an industrial working class. 

One version of supposed socialism, that implemented by Lenin after some floundering around, was actually called “state capitalism” by him.  The businesses were to be managed as before but instead of private owners, they would be owned and controlled by the government, which in turn would supposedly be under the control of the people.  This did not in fact work out very well, as we know; its defects parallel those which often appear in very large corporations, but in addition the management had the official power to jail or execute their employees.  This sort of “socialism” seems to have captured everyone’s imagination, usually in a bad way, but it’s actually a fake.

However, I don’t think this has a lot to do with world government.  The essential logic of the state, the belief that some should control others, implies empire; empire implies world government.  In the last few hundred years, there have been two kinds of empire: First, empires based on national states, like those of Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Germany, Japan, and so forth, which have invariably resulted in the bankruptcy and ruin of the nation-states that attempted to build them.  The other kind of empire is what might be called the Empire of Capital or the Republic of Money.  It is not really centered on a nation-state, although the United States has been first among equals in recent decades when it is not wandering in the hells of national imperialism.  The empire would be a superstate oriented towards the service of transnational corporations and their satellites; total political control would probably be thought unnecessary, indeed, silly, unless dissidence got sufficiently out of hand to impede profits.

Capitalism has been the most revolutionary and radically transformative social force in the world since the related inventions of military organization and slavery—that’s several thousand years.  It eaten up everything that stood against it and either destroyed it or made it part of itself.  The nation-state will either serve it or be likewise eaten; that’s happening already.  There are no socialists involved.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 21, 2009 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

I must remind you DaveZx3z that for some reason unknown to me , the Bill of Rights does not count in the corporate tyranny. Remember that next time you want unfettered corporations running things.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 21, 2009 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 21 at 11:43 am #

“Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of production by the workers”

By ardee, October 21 at 5:56 am #

“I might suggest that Dave return to his civics texts and re-read the parts comparing rampant unfettered Capitalism and the real meaning of Socialism”

DaveZx3 says:

DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

When I speak of socialism in this context, I am not talking about the small communes you describe or ownership by the workers. 

I am speaking of all things owned and controlled by the state, to the point that it becomes worse than an unfettered market and becomes tyranny. 

The IMF/WB has shown a love of high taxes, more government subsidies and intervention, and less personal responsibility.  These are not capitalist ideas.

Anyway, I am not advocating rampant capitalism, I don’t thinnk it is serving us too well. 

I am advocating personal ownership of property, and the sovereign rights of individuals as set forth in our Bill of Rights.  I am advocating less government intervention, less taxes and more personal responsibility.  I am advocating the preservation of our constitution. 

I have no problem with socialism as regards to worker ownership of means of production.  It is actually probably a good idea, and sees good results in companies that have ESOP’s.  As far as I am concerned, the people that work in a company should have ownership of that company.  At least they would control their destiny, have a job, and not face their company moving to China or India. 

The IMF/WB/WTO have transitional aspirations in line with definitions 1 and 2 above, and as such they can be labeled socialist.  But because they move money like rampant, greedy capitalists, it only goes to show that tyrants will use any means that they can to reach their goals. 

The final aspirations of these organizations is benevolent control of the whole world.  They want to be our daddy.  Tell us when we can use the car and what time we have to be home at night. 

If we didn’t have to get hung up on words, we all could probably come to consensus that these people are trying to rape all of us, and they need to be stopped, no matter what you call them.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2009 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3: ’... It is all part of the socialist dream to bring the world under the control of one government. ...’

ardee: : ‘I might suggest that Dave return to his civics texts and re-read the parts comparing rampant unfettered Capitalism and the real meaning of Socialism.

Calling the decision makers of our largest financial institutions “socialists” is a rather funny (as in peculiar) position to take. I hope the poster didnt hurt himself with that stretch. ...’

Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of production by the workers.  I can’t think of an instance of this arrangement larger than a mid-sized company (the Mondragon cooperative).  Although there are millions of cooperatives and communes and some of their members may dream of world conquest, I really doubt these dreams are of any present significance.

Capitalism, however, has long since burst the bounds of tribe, nation and state, and many corporations have global presence.  Capitalists control the most important governments and, since 1945 anyway, have seen to it that they get along.  The problems raised by the relations of large multinational institutions were observed more than 100 years ago, and led to the formation of numerous transnational organizations, including the League of Nations, the United Nations, the WTO, and others, which serve to mediate and provide a framework of law between the corporate behemoths.  There, you might say, is your world government—Capital.  Or, as it’s been called by some, the Republic of Money.

Forget the socialists.  There’s an elephant in the room.

Report this

By ardee, October 21, 2009 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

ThomasG, October 20 at 7:38 pm

Your opinion of my, or anyone’s posts is rather inconsequential to me, probably the same for most here I think. Sad you do not see what a clown you are.

Report this

By ardee, October 21, 2009 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

It is all part of the socialist dream to bring the world under the control of one government.

I might suggest that Dave return to his civics texts and re-read the parts comparing rampant unfettered Capitalism and the real meaning of Socialism.

Calling the decision makers of our largest financial institutions “socialists” is a rather funny ( as in peculiar) position to take. I hope the poster didnt hurt himself with that stretch.

As to buying up property, the current trend seems to be away from mortgages, the companies we bailed out are simply not rewriting the exiting ones or issuing many new ones either. Those credit default swaps were a ridiculous idea, rash in fact, as has been proven, but to attempt to place the blame for the ills of the worlds economy on “foreigners” and “socialists” seems to ignore the fact that much of the worlds transnational companies are American owned, as was the entire CDS invention.

Further the CDS fiasco was only made possible by the deregulation of them by Phil Gramm who, along with his charming wife Wendy, devoted their entire working lives to freeing our corporations from any regulatory binders whatsoever.

Rather than accept Dave’s assumption that all our problems are caused by evil socialists from other countries I suggest further study, perhaps from a far less biased position. Though I think his rant has a distinct stand up comedy routine flavor to it.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 21, 2009 at 1:48 am Link to this comment

By No_Man’s_Land, October 19 at 10:38 pm #

“They’re called the WTO and the IMF—international banking types. They enact trade and lending agreements that limit the power of governments around the world to regulate those business practices. In short, they are globalists that answer to no form of democracy. By ensnaring the developing world into debt, they indirectly create the conditions that allow things like terrorism to thrive. Then we have to go kill and die to clean it up. Watch Africa. A lot of foreign investment going into that place. The populations are becoming destabalized. And we just stood up AFRICOM.”

I agreed with you No Man but did not have time to throw my 2cents in, so here it goes. 

It has been my opinion that the banking industry has evolved from an institution that serves communities to an institution that wants to OWN communities, or at least trade in (buy and sell) communities. 

Their main target is real estate, the source of all true wealth. It was not hard to see what the outcome was going to be when the US economy turned into a credit economy funded by home equity and credit cards.  Personal wealth gets transformed instantly into bank revenue.  And then through bundling of mortgages, the bankers brother, the securities dealer could reap some obscene cash also. 

The IMF/World Bank plays the same game with nations.  They appraise nations, actually counting and evaluating the people, cattle, real estate, infrastructure, in addition to their financial status, GNP, national debt, etc.

The bank uses the balance sheet of the nation as collateral, in sorts, on the loans that the nation is given.  So, in effect, if a poor country defaults on a loan, the country can be repossessed by the bank.  Of course the bank really does not want to own that country, they just want to control the property, people and resources of that country. I wonder if we will see them bundling nations and selling them as derivatives?  (rhetorical)

It is all part of the socialist dream to bring the world under the control of one government.  The upper, upper, upper level guys & gals have finally figured out that it is hard to take the world over by force, so they decided about 60 years ago to do it with economics.  And they have been doing such a good job of it.  A few more crises and wars, and we will all be begging them for some more cash to ease the pain, while sinking further into debt and slavery.

The WTO is just another horn of the same “beast” controlling through trade instead of loans.

As an American who believes that these institutions subvert our constitutiion and sovereignty, I do not buy into any of them.  I know America is fully engaged, but there is this false idea in America that we have play with these people or we will be seen as anti-social.  I am not anti-social, I am anti-socialist.  I am not preaching isolationism.  I am preaching the preservation of America as a sovereign nation with or freedoms intact. 

I am sorry if these anti-American greedy globalists, call themselves American conservatives, because they don’t act like one.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 20, 2009 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment

This is just how MarthaA/ThomasG are. They act like robots following very tight and unwavering scripts. Like programs. Whatever they are I saw homasG first in 2007 at AltNet.

It doesn’t change for them. Like a highly pressed cosmic matter like a collapsed star.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 20, 2009 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 20 at 5:25pm,

Your post to MarthaA is a boarding house reach for a large serving of blah.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 20, 2009 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

Dave:

only problem is that America is a huge player in both, I’m sad to say…

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 20, 2009 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

ardee, October 20 at 5:47pm,

In the words of YOUR long time friend, Shenonymous, YOUR post to DaveZx3 is amorphous “shit in a bucket”.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 20, 2009 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

By No_Man’s_Land, October 19 at 10:38 pm #


Dave:

“But I am of the mindset that there is that international agenda that would like to dictate to the USA, and I am not for it.”

“They’re called the WTO and the IMF—international banking types. They enact trade and lending agreements that limit the power of governments around the world to regulate those business practices. In short, they are globalists that answer to no form of democracy. By ensnaring the developing world into debt, they indirectly create the conditions that allow things like terrorism to thrive. Then we have to go kill and die to clean it up. Watch Africa. A lot of foreign investment going into that place. The populations are becoming destabalized. And we just stood up AFRICOM”.

No Man,  I just wanted to say that I am 100% behind you on this post of yours.  No comments necessary, you said it all.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 20, 2009 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

ardee, October 20 at 5:47 pm #

Can’t thank you enough, ardee, for getting that straight for me.  I’m thinking like you’re thinking, that they are one and the same.  Of course I am still not giving up on the idea that he/she is a plant to discredit the left. 

Unnfortunately for me, I don’t seem to have the discipline to let absurd statements go unchallenged.  I will have to work on it.

Like I wrote before posting to her earlier, “I bite my tongue and pinch my arms to kill the urge to respond to you, MarthaA, but it did not work this time”.

I think that was when she said there is no such thing as the middle, because it is only a dot and you can’t stand on a dot.  I mean really, how can you pass on that one? 

Anyway ardee, thanks again for helping me clear that up.  I owe you one.

Report this

By ardee, October 20, 2009 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 20 at 5:25 pm #

While we are on differing sides of the political spectrum I do enjoy your efforts thus far. Thus I will help you out with the puzzle that is MarthaA/ThomasG.

Some time ago they appeared, and in Thomas’ first effort here he asserted ( rather pridefully and bold as brass) that he had brought down several left leaning forums for disagreeing with his political opinions. Scary huh?

When some began to note, as have you already, the incredible similarities in verbiage, style and use of the exact same word or phrase at the exact same time MarthaA volunteered that they were brother and sister sharing the same computer, thus had the same address.

I thought it a rather odd thing to divulge and have come to believe that this person ( I do think them one and the same ) had been caught out by someone tracing their linkage backward and skewered him/her in the past. This internet seems to encourage the strange.

You will soon be labeled, as many of us here are already, with any number of trite and sophomric brandings…be prepared for it…;-)

I have come to pass on the posts that contain far too many bold type , italics and capitalization, I just skip ‘em frankly. They are, or should be I think, seen as a strange sort of comic relief I guess.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 20, 2009 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

You cannot fold the opinions of people down the middle like a piece of paper.  Most people are not extreme, and there is a lot of consensus around the middle. 

When you plot opinion, it is shaped more like a bell curve than an upside down V.  You get a lot of consensus in the middle, but as you get to the extremes you have very little. 

If we did not have an absolute ton of consensus in the middle, we would all be dead by now.  These are not rocket science concepts, but basic civics 101. 

I try to be polite, but you really test my patience with your absolute intolerance of anything you do not understand.  I thank God that all who reside on the left side of the spectrum are not as intolerant as you are.  Most I can have a rational discussion with, but that could not happen with you. 

And what is with this guy ThomasG?  He writes exactly the same as you do.  Are you two related?  Are you the same person?  I really know that there cannot be two people in the world that share that same style.  You have to be the same person. 

You are not a credit to your politics, and you will probably be a big help in getting the Republicans back into power in 2012 if you don’t get some rationality in there somewhere. 

Wait a minute!!!!!  I get it now!!  You are a plant by the Republican right wing conservative extremists squanderers to absolutely discredit the fanatical left wing extremist communist socialists.  Wow! it took me a long time to figure it out, but thank God I did.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 20, 2009 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 20 at 9:14am,

DaveZx3 said: “I will not insult you by saying a lot of obvious things, that I really want to say.”

MarthaA’s answer: You insult me by not saying what you really want to say and trying to feed me that subjective propaganda.

MarthaA said: “fold a piece of paper double and crease the middle, then open it up and see if you can write anything substantial on that middle crease, that is all the middle is between the Left and the Right, but there are TWO middle positions in the political spectrum—Democratic Center Left and Aristocratic Center Right——again, which center do you choose, the Left or the Right?”

MarthaA’s answer:  It is better to deal with actual reality, rather than non-reality, illusory reality or subjective reality. If you folded the paper together, then you know the crease in the middle is in an imaginary world. There is an actual Left and there is an actual Right and both have Moderates, which is all the middles there are. My preference for the middle would be the democratic middle on the Left, but you have apparently chosen to be an aristocratic Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST, since the aristocratic FAR Right are all EXTREMISTS, if they were not EXTREME, they would not be on the FAR Right.

Report this

By theworm, October 20, 2009 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Conservatives love profit and hate “America” when profits decline.
Here’s how:
Why would anyone want to spend $100 dollars for private sector health
insurance and have $20 to $30 go to the insurer, leaving as little as $70-80 of
your original $100 for doctors, pharmacies and hospitals, i.e. the folks who are
going to provide you with health care ?  The obvious answer is ‘no one’, and
that’s why the ‘controversial public option’ was always the public’s (not the
politicians’) preferred model.  The only ones who thought the public option
‘controversial’ were insurers, who feared the lose of your money to make
themselves richer. Both the people and their health care providers consider the
private for profit insurance industry to be ‘controversial’, for very legitimate
reasons and based on long experience: denying coverage, resending coverage,
banking profits not improving services, paying huge ‘bonuses’ to staff and
CEOs for denying and resending coverage and limiting treatments. Everyone
knows the ‘death panel’ stories are based on real life private for profit
insurance industry incidents, in which private-for-profit insurers (not
‘government agencies’) denied life-saving care to policyholders. The
‘controversial public option’ was ever only ‘controversial’ to profit health
insurers and their billionaire ‘Tea Baggers’ led by Malcolm Forbes and Dick
Armey. The ‘public option’ was always the preferred option for 75% of
Americans, because we’ve seen the private sector for profit insurance industry
at work for many many years, and we know the government can do it better.
But, hating our government as ‘we the people’ do, and loving profits as we’ve
the people have been told to do, the public option is ‘controversial’. See how
‘hating the government’ works for conservatives.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 20, 2009 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

ThomasG

I thought “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was a pretty simple, straight forward concept. 

I never realized it was all wrapped up in a system of progressive capitalist communism, and extreme left-right fanatical money-grabbing, war-mongering elitist Republicanized Democrats who worship social right- wing neoconservative revolutionary marxists. 

It’s not my fault, I was educated at a time when these words meant something else.  It is hard to keep up with the times.  That’s why I have to be a conservative.  I can’t keep up with all the new terminology.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, October 20, 2009 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 20 at 9:14am and DaveZx3, October 19 at 5:02pm,

DaveZx3: “They are easy to list, in my opinion, because they consist of one thing - FREEDOM TO PURSUE OUR DREAMS WHILE NOT TREADING ON ANOTHERS DREAMS.  To me it is as simple as that.  It has been said that the Golden Rule is: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”  Another good one.”

ThomasG’s answer: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” framed into a binary concept that pits Capitalism against Communism is both a false dichotomy and a false frame.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” related to the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST philosophy and agenda that is inclusive and exclusively for Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS and excludes the Left and liberals is a definite bastardization of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  To be meaningful “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” would have to be inclusive of everyone, including both the Right and the Left, otherwise “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you” has no meaning, and is nothing more than an empty statement.

Capitalism DOES NOT require Capitalists, Capitalism ONLY requires Capital.

At the present the United States has Corporate Capitalistic Communism for the few at the expense of the many; the proof of this is the TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS that have been taken from the communal resources of taxpayers to support the value of private capital.

The choice is NOT between Capitalism and Communism as a false dichotomy and a false frame; the choice is between privatized Capitalism and socialized Capitalism.

It is time for a change to socialized Capitalism that provides benefit for the many, rather than just benefit for the few, that does not have to be supported by TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of communal resources of the many without benefit to the many.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 20, 2009 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

MarthaA

I bite my tongue and pinch my arms to kill the urge to respond to you, MarthaA, but it did not work this time.

You said: 

“Which side’s dead center middle are you talking about? ——the middle of the Democratic Party’s Liberal Side——or the middle of the Republican Party’s Conservative side?  There is NO middle position between the two sides, only a dot, and you can’t get many people on a dot. Your slash between left and right would be difficult to stand on, as there is no room at all to stand, much less put a chair” 

I will not insult you by saying a lot of obvious things, that I really want to say.

I will only say that, with regard to the spectrum of politics, middle refers to those who have views not too far left or not too far right.  There are other words I could have used, but “middle” seemed to fit my purpose at the time. 

That is all I am talking about.  It is as simple as that, no conspiracy, no fanaticism, no radicalism, simple straight forward, non-inflammaatory words.

Why words as simple and unthreatening as that need to be responded to with a fiery flurry of rhetorical redundancy beats me.  But I suspect that it is what is killing the political process in America today.  And it is probably why extremists never seem to get anything done, except spout off their perverted philosophies.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 19, 2009 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 19 at 5:02pm,

DaveZx3: “Extremists never seem to get anything done, because they are always rationalizing their beliefs and protecting themselves from the mainstream.

MarthaA’s answer: Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS have got a lot done for the Right-Wing EXTREMIST Corporations and the Elite in the last 40 years.  The conservatives on the Right ARE the EXTREMISTS.  The conservatives are as far right as you can go on the political spectrum. 

DaveZx3: “it is not about Progressing to the left, but preserving the dead-center middle and also preserving and encouraging a two-party left/right source of rational, respectful debate over the ways to perfect the republic that we have been entrusted with.”

MarthaA’s answer:  When government is as far Right as it can go, it is an absolute that government must be moved to the Left.  Which side’s dead center middle are you talking about? ——the middle of the Democratic Party’s Liberal Side——or the middle of the Republican Party’s Conservative side?  There is NO middle position between the two sides, only a dot, and you can’t get many people on a dot. Your slash between left and right would be difficult to stand on, as there is no room at all to stand, much less put a chair. 

Currently on the aristocratic Republican Conservative side of the political spectrum there are NO Liberals at all and Olympia Snowe is the only possibly Moderate aristocratic Conservative.

Currently on the Democratic Liberal side of the political spectrum there are a few democratic Liberals, but there are way too many aristocratic Conservatives and aristocratic Conservatives who call themselves Moderates when it is convenient, but are not democratic.  A political conservative liberal is an oxymoron, a null set, as one can’t be both.

All Right-Wing aristocratic Moderates and aristocratic Conservatives on the democratic Left need to move on over to the aristocratic Right where they belong.

Left/Right——Liberal/Conservative——Democratic Party/Republican Party——there are two middles, one middle on each side; which middle do you choose?——the orange aristocratic middle or the green democratic middle?  the slash only divides and has no objective or subjective position where one can stand——fold a piece of paper double and crease the middle, then open it up and see if you can write anything substantial on that middle crease, that is all the middle is between the Left and the Right, but there are TWO middle positions in the political spectrum—Democratic Center Left and Aristocratic Center Right——again, which center do you choose, the Left or the Right?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 19, 2009 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment

Cancer reads with the same DNA so they aren’t rejected as they should be. One of our flaws that can kill us. They are our selves cells that go rogue—-lassaize faire and that is a disaster. They are immortal and reproduce as fast as they can and as long as they want to consume at will and crowd out the normal cells. Total freedom in a limited resource setting. Sound familiar? It should it is the earth and we are doing to the earth what cancer does to our bodies. Sad but true.

We can cure ourselves if we take the time to. It is up to us to do it before Nature does it too us.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 19, 2009 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

Arnecisse

“For the most part, the cells of the body limit or govern themselves.  In those cases where they run wild, the immune system destroys them, but the immune system doesn’t try to tell the other cells what to do.”

Some cells are able to reprogram other cells’ DNA. Ths is the basis for genetic breeding, as was done by farmers over the millenia and in today’s genetic engineering. In GM food, they use flu like viruses to pierce the cell walls and inject activator cells with the new DNA.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 19, 2009 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Dave:

“But I am of the mindset that there is that international agenda that would like to dictate to the USA, and I am not for it.”

They’re called the WTO and the IMF—international banking types. They enact trade and lending agreements that limit the power of governments around the world to regulate those business practices. In short, they are globalists that answer to no form of democracy. By ensnaring the developing world into debt, they indirectly create the conditions that allow things like terrorism to thrive. Then we have to go kill and die to clean it up. Watch Africa. A lot of foreign investment going into that place. The populations are becoming destabalized. And we just stood up AFRICOM.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 19, 2009 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

nd one more thing that should be declared whenever possible:  the root of almost all political disagreement is based on belief or non-belief in God as creator and benefactor.  Our views on that subject shape almost every other view we have, but we are not allowed to acknowledge it in the public sector.  (Although, Congress still says their opening prayer)

But I contend that prayer that is not directed to a god of some sort is useless prayer.  I wonder what god they are directing it to?
*******************************************

Actually, people use “God” to justify both excellent and hideous behavior.  I submit that both Mother Theresa and Tomas de Torquemada were totally devout Catholics.

“When people talk to God, they are really talking to me. (Or they are talking to themselves)”—Alan Rickman as “The Megatron” in “Dogma”

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 19, 2009 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3:

I would agree. You are a very reasonable man and its nice to have a civil discussion of such things. As for “encouraging people to participate,” the only point I’d stress here is that the market controls access to sustenance necessary for life, which is why I compared it to a manipulation of the food supply.

I do think there would be incentive for people to participate if a) they believed in the system (ie opportunity) and b) could more easily choose their field. That’s something that will probably take a few generations to mend, though. I certainly wouldn’t be in the industry I’m in if I’d had other opportunities earlier in life. You are correct. People should be encourged to contribute, just not in the present manner.

Its been a good discussion. And Martha is wrong. You are not a an extremist. Sometimes, I think we get so caught up labeling ourselves and others that we don’t take the time to look at the things we all agree on. Pity.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt:
... All things must have a governor, a means of limit or it runs wild. Like cells in the body, if they are free to reproduce and spread where they will we call it cancer and it kills the body. ...

For the most part, the cells of the body limit or govern themselves.  In those cases where they run wild, the immune system destroys them, but the immune system doesn’t try to tell the other cells what to do.

This leads to the question, though, of whether a social entity composed of separate human beings can be considered a single, coherent organism.  Animal organisms are conscious of themselves as selves, and experience sentience and will and single beings (or at least we think we do).  There seem to be some important differences between the collectivity of cells we call the body and the collectivity of bodies we call a community or a society.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 19, 2009 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

Nigh-Gaunt

“All things must have a governor, a means of limit or it runs wild”.

Those are true words, absolutely.  I guess where we might differ is who or what the governor should be.  But I am a simple conservative and easy to get along with.  I am ready to let other reasonable, ideas come in, after being hearilly debated in a respectful manner, and be tried out to see if they actually better the republic. 

The end result for me is that we produce by some means the ideas that the overwhelming majority of us hold dear. 

They are easy to list, in my opinion, because they consist of one thing - FREEDOM TO PURSUE OUR DREAMS WHILE NOT TREADING ON ANOTHERS DREAMS.  To me it is as simple as that.  It has been said that the Golden Rule is: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”  Another good one.

But it is not rocket science, as they say.  Our laws to not have to be wrapped up in thousands of pages of gobbledy gook which no one can understand and are filled with technicalities that are always hitting you between the eyes when you need a law the most.

WE collectively have built the ultimate competitive society, where we encourage winners and boo loosers.  Where we beg, cheat and steal to get that promotion, that big pay check, that big SUV and house.  We have allowed greedy people to convince us that its American Dream. 

The founders did not establish greed as the American dream.  It worked its seedy way in when we weren’t looking.  But it is in every one of us to an extent, and some are very good at competing and making billions.  We demonize them on one hand and idolize them on the other. 

So America has run amok, admittedly.  But the foundation is sound.  From a conservative viewpoint, I do not want to tear everything down and start fresh with the Communist Manifesto.  I am not interested in changing capitalism for communism.  They both become corrupt in all almost all cases, but at least with capitalism I have a slight chance to keep my home. 

The problem obviously becomes bringing regulation without tyranny and bloody revolution. Which would be fairly simple to do for reasonable, clear thinking individuals.  Too bad we don’t get to have any of them in government or the corporate world. 

But I am of the mindset that there is that international agenda that would like to dictate to the USA, and I am not for it.  I am not willing to turn the USA over to pure democracy, and definitely not communism.  If we were under the jurisdiction of the international community, there would sooner or later come a majority, consisting of scant few Americans, and that democratic majority would dictate things we do not want to hear.  And at that point, in my opinion, we are right back to 1776.

We can work out our problems, but we need clear-thinking politicians that can reach across the aisle and solve problems in non-partisan ways. 

I was somewhat encouraged with Obama in the beginning, but how disappointed do you suppose someone like me became upon about seeing the video of Anita Dunn saying that Mao was one of her favorite philosphers.  That is not what encourages me that we have a bright future.  Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, et al, may not have been perfect, but I am going to take them anyday over Mao or Castro. 

There are too many fringe guys around Obama, and that worries me.  But no more than it would worry me if some “Right-wing Republican Extremist squanderers”, to quote MarthaA, got into a Republican administration.  Extremists never seem to get anything done, because they are always rationalizing their beliefs and protecting themselves from the mainstream. 

In my opinion, it is not about Progressing to the left, but preserving the dead-center middle and also preserving and encouraging a two-party left/right source of rational, respectful debate over the ways to perfect the republic that we have been entrusted with.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 19, 2009 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

Conservative EXTREMISTS want to be happy with themselves after their destruction of the country as if they are innocent of any crime, but all conservative EXTREMISTS are GUILTY as Hell and there are a bunch of Conservative EXTREMISTS that should be in prison with the key thrown away.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 19, 2009 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Thank you DaveZx3 for I and others have asked, and speculated, on MarthaA & ThomasG‘s mode of writing. It is called a tautology and they do it endlessly. Like the Oroborous symbol. Such as those who quote from one part of the Bible to support another. A logical fallacy it is called.

All things must have a governor, a means of limit or it runs wild. Like cells in the body, if they are free to reproduce and spread where they will we call it cancer and it kills the body. Like fire, they are good to use but dangerous and must be controlled so they won’t destroy. Such is Capitalism. We need to have it to promote innovation but it needs to be kept in check so the greed factor won’t destroy itself and us too. The Hounds of Capitalist Chaos have been let loose on us since 1980 for a reason. To bring down our republic. They still may yet do it.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 19, 2009 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

No Man’s Land:  You make legitimate points regarding campaign financing, excessive influence and progressive taxation.  You misread me a little on “always encouraging others to participate”, but we could easily clear that up.  I think you and I could come to consensus on a plan to get America back on a better track.  I am conservative, but I am not stupid, beligerent or unrealistic.  And I am not a member of the Republican party. And contrary to what Mr. Robinson says, I do love America.

Inherit the Wind:  I have no arguments with you last post.  We are flawed, and it is best to admit it whenever possible.  What you and I would have to come to consensus on is what is the best way to deal with our bad collective character.  It might be hard if you are agnostic, as I would suggest turning to God.  And one more thing that should be declared whenever possible:  the root of almost all political disagreement is based on belief or non-belief in God as creator and benefactor.  Our views on that subject shape almost every other view we have, but we are not allowed to acknowledge it in the public sector.  (Although, Congress still says their opening prayer) 

But I contend that prayer that is not directed to a god of some sort is useless prayer.  I wonder what god they are directing it to?

Ardee,  thanks for pointing out that MarthaA has to come up with a new line.  She can’t just keep saying
“Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS are squanderers”  You just have to have a little more to your repetoire for others to take you serious.

Report this

By ardee, October 19, 2009 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, October 18 at 9:36 pm

It has been said that if one puts an infinite number of monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters they will eventually recreate all the books ever written.

Martha’s efforts seem examples of such, especially this last ridiculously circular bit of silliness…Martha, does your tail ever get in the way of your typing?

grin

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 18, 2009 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, October 16 at 11:42pm,

You can reject the fact that political conservative EXTREMISTS are squanderers, but it doesn’t change the fact that political Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST squanderers destroyed the economy of our nation because political Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS are squanderers.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

Dave,

Your statement: “A truly free marketplace is not the enemy, but the crooks that manipulate it are.” is typically unrealistic of “conservatives”. Do you expect people not to cheat when there’s no regulation?  The HONOR SYSTEM??? When BILLIONS are at stake????  How many people would ACTUALLY pay their fare on the subways and metros of the world if it was all on the honor system—and that’s just a few bucks?

While I fully accept that our founding fathers were flawed humans, I submit a) they knew it. Some had some really repulsive characteristics b) they were able to STILL create the most brilliant system of government ever to that point c) They not only KNEW they were flawed, they designed their system with the expectation that there WOULD be corruption and sought to suppress that with the checks and balances.  They didn’t rely on everyone in government being disinterested and honorable.

As an Agnostic, I don’t believe our rights are “God-given”. However, that’s irrelevant as based on my logical views, I too see our rights as innate and a natural result of existence.  You see it as “God-given”, I see it as fundamental to being living, sapient beings.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 18, 2009 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

“It does not follow that because I have been successful in the free market that I will use my wealth to ‘buy and sell politicians’.”

That’s not what I was suggesting. I am, however, suggesting that indsutries pursue their interests, often to the detriment of democracy, and hence the people (but not always). And, I would suggest that if your position in the market were threatened, the forces that be would compel you toward self- preservation. That self preservation, be it reactive or proactive, is the prime mover of both competition and corruption.

“There are two separate activities here, the legal market activity, and the illegal buying and selling of politicians activity.”

Incorrect. Campaign financing is perfetly legal. Though some controls have been attempted, they ultimately fail. Again, corporations are legally considered living entities with all the same rights as sentient beings. Rights of collective bodies were accounted for very stricty in the Constitution via states, counties, municipalties etc. They did not inlcude corporate rights into the Bill of Rights for a reason. Corporations live in between the cracks of democracy and beyond. As such, they are not subject to democratic controls the way the previously mentioned collectives are. Yet, their influcence throughout the political spectrum is perfectly legal. A final thought on this point. They control 99% of all information. How can democracy work if the gatekeepers of information find certain pieces of information threatening to their positions?

“Reasonable influence is a by-product of doing well.”

No. Influence is a by-product of disproportional power and is counter the concept of one person, one vote. If it were on based merit, those merely born into wealth or political dynasty would have no influence. It also assumes that financial success is the only form of success and hence the only one that is deserving of influence.

“Always encourage others to do well and participate in the system.”

Machiavellian concept equivelant to manipulating the food supply to control behavior or to ensure loyalty to a power structure. Disallows individual choice by pushing people into industries they otherwise would not enter.

Progressive taxation merely means that we are taxed in a manner that is proprotional to benefits we’ve derived from the society we live in. It also recognizes that taxation at the lowest echelons have higher a impact on the individual. For example, If I earn 1 million/yr and I am taxed $100,000, I feel the loss of that 100,000 less than the person who makes $10,000 and is taxed $1,000, or the person makes $1000 and is taxed $100. In short, the more I benefit from society, the more I am expected to reinvest back into that society. Also helps to flatten power and influence in a more egalitarian fashion.

“Collective bargaining/Public Ed

In complete agreement on both counts. Though I would add that the function of education is not consensus of opinion, but the comprehension of concepts, the capacity for critical thought, and a more holistic understanding of the human condition than we previously had. To discourage critical thought is to demand group-think, also counter to democracy. To educate toward a desired opinion is a bit Orewellian, IMO. Schools today are mere job training factories and are failing in these objectives.

A Republic is the vehicle that implements democracy. I would agree with your assessment and go further to say that a pure democracy would be no less an anarchy than an unfettered market.

We put limits on everything with power in this country: governments, military, police, polticians etc. Yet, the argument (most often cited by Limbaugh types) is that regulation of markets is counterproductive. That kind of position does not recognize the power the market has over the lives of its patrons and over democracy. To believe in the Constitution is to believe in limits on power, in checks, and in balances.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 18, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

No Mans Land

“If you agree that politicians should not be bought and sold, then you have chosen democracy over pure capitalism, and have therefore supported a regulation of the market”.

I’m rejecting that one, No Man.  It does not follow that because I have been successful in the free market that I will use my wealth to “buy and sell politicians”.  There are two separate activities here, the legal market activity, and the illegal buying and selling of politicians activity.  Don’t attempt to control illegal activity by over-regulating legal activity. A truly free marketplace is not the enemy, but the crooks that manipulate it are.

Progressive taxation:  If you mean taxing to the extent that no one will have influence except “the collective dictator”  I reject that.  Reasonable influence is a by-product of doing well.  Encourage more people to do well, so the influence is spread around.  Always encourage others to do well and participate in the system, and always discourage sitting around on your butt. It only makes sense. 

Collective bargaining:  It sounds legitimate, but most always ends up in greed and corruption on its own front.  The concept of democracy in a lot of unions is an illusion.  Unions, like everything else, are only as legitimate as the crooks that run them.  But the concept is honorable, and I would go for it if it remained honorable. 

Public Education:  This is one I reallly go for.  And we can start by teaching the origins and foundations of our great country.  We have progressed from calling our founders gods to calling them criminals.  They are neither, but they did a very, very good job under the circumstances, a job which is the basis of my conservatism. 

One more thing before I turn on the football game. 
Technically, I am not a fan of pure democracy.  Don’t get your gun, let me explain.  Democracy is defined, I believe, as rule (sovereignty) of the majority.  51% can enact a law to restrict the rights of 49%.  The whims of a simple majority can be very fickle, and our founders foresaw the potential problems, so they enacted a republic in which every citizen is sovereign and cannot (theoretically) have his rights voted away by others.  Rights are inalienable and God-given in the United State of America, not democratic and granted by the majority.  This is the most important point of my conservatism.  I will defend the constitution to my death, and I make no apologies for it. 

Somehow it has become acceptable to enact legislation in this country, such as that being considered currently, which would compel indivuals to buy health insurance.  I do not believe that is constitutional.  I could see it being challenged eventually.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 18, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3:

No one argued to get rid of the market. We argue to get rid of the unfettered market. If you agree that politicians should not be bought and sold, then you have chosen democracy over pure capitalism, and have therefore supported a regulation of the market. Its not about doing away with the market. Its about harnessing it so that it works for us rather than agaisnt us. What we have now are markets run amok. If we keep the market, there are only 4 ways to control it, or box it in so that it does not become more powerful than democracy.

1) regulation and enforcement: the laws you want enforced

2) progressive taxation: ensures that no market/person has more influence than democracy itself

3) collective bargaining: democracy in the workplace. works to spread influence within a democracy over a population as opposed to concentrating it in the hands of a few.

4) Effective public education: without it, we are easily deceived into acting against our own interets.

Over the last 40 years, we have seen every one of these pillars eroded substantially.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 18, 2009 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind,

It is hard to discuss conservatism rationally, because there have been so many crimes committed by so-called conservatives.  I agree with all your points, and do not defend anyone who commits these crimes, whether they call themselves conservative, liberal, Repubican or Democrat. 

Criminals are criminals no matter what name they use.  The fact that there are so many of them in government should be addressed immediately.  And the fact that there are so many of them in business should be addressed immediately. 

I believe that we could cut our legislation in half and still have more than enough to put every criminal in government, business, education, medicine, religion and defense into prison. 

It is a matter of boldly enforcing law.  Right now crime pays in America, and the criminals are running amok without fear and the perverted system that allows it is as much criminal as the criminals.  It has become rotten at all levels. 

Regarding free markets, there is nothing wrong with the concept.  But the criminal, unethical immoral greed monger corrupts it and pillages it to his own benefit.  The solution is not to get rid of the market, get rid of the criminal. 

But I want to say that the foundation of the USA is still good, That is why I am conservative.  I want to preserve the foundation and rebuild the rest of the house.  Then we can have an honest two-party system where we can debate our issues openly and with honor.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 18, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, but I do find that if we can idenitfy and agree on the constants, it will give us some glimpse into what the next action will be.

Constant #1:
Growth. All entrenched power structures seek it.

Constant #2:
Self preservation. Power strutures will viscerally defend their right and ability to grow/exist.

Constant #3:
Money supply
Money = self imposed scarcity of access to goods and services. That scarcity determines its value. He who controls the money supply, controls its market.

Given these three constants, I would be looking for changes in currency. We are now seeing a push to replace the dollar as the reserve currency from the Chinese and Russians with something issued by the IMF. America’s fiat money will therefore be forced to change. My guess would be that we will do one of two things: adopt the new currency or alter our own.

If there is a new pecking order being established, our oligarchs will be forced to conform in some way to the new king of the hill. They will not threaten their positions by creating a currency that threatens the new order.

If I had to guess, I’d say we will see changes in currency and further adherance WTO control under the auspices of preventing another crash. Look for moves to centralize international monetary and finance systems.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2009 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind:
I reject your categorization or judgment about my previous statement.  A true conservative by nature cannot be a squanderer.
********************************************

Which is why the groups of people who describe themselves as “Conservatives” are nothing of the sort.  They are radical reactionaries, which is NOT the same thing.

A true Conservative is not only a believer in fiscal responsibility, he believes in conserving natural resources, and is always suspicious of change.

Back in the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson used to say that the Democratic Party was the conservative party.  That is, they wanted to maintain the established order which had been constructed during the Depression and World War 2.  I think that was true then and it is certainly true today.  But that is using the word conservative in one of its traditional meanings, a practice which seems to be studiously avoided in contemporary political discourse.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2009 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land—I haven’t been all that interested in the mechanics of money, for the most part.  It was the curious disjunction of the rise of the bubbles in equities and real estate alongside a non-inflationary, even mildly deflationary economy for other goods and services that caught my interest.  I couldn’t figure out how they were doing it.  Hummel helped with that.  Now I’m trying to figure out what will happen next.  To do that I need to figure out why they were doing it in the first place, and what their present intentions are.  (By “they” I’m referring mostly to the government and upper-strata ruling-class types.)  The bubbles were rather widespread so the psychology involved in them was easier to observe.  Today, huge amounts of money are created and moved around by a few guys sitting behind closed doors, so the course of things is harder to predict.  Since there is probably not enough labor in the world to back the amount of money, including credit, which has been created, I take it some kind of serious inflation is going to occur at some point, but it’s hard to know when, just as one knew that eventually the real estate bubble would pop, but predicting the moment before it happened was pretty difficult.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 18, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Daver:

A caveat. Rot most certainly has rights. Those buying our politicans working in the revolving door have many more rights than you and I. There is a reaosn that obth liberals and conservatives are frustrated. Our politicans no longer respond to our demands. I would as you to consider why. We can choose to say that we need campaing finance reform or to block the relvovling door between Washington and Corportate American and eventually we run out of fingers and toes to plug those leaks.

I argue the problem is systemic. And if its systemic, then we must look at what parts of our system are having the greatest impact. I suggest nothing more than a little reverse engineering.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 18, 2009 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3

“Rot does not have rights. Unfortunately, I think rotten politicians have rights.  Maybe we could do something about that.”

Your analogy is good but I would argue a bit incomplete. It does not address why the house springs so many leaks in the first place. If it were a consistent problem, would we not look at how the shingles were laid or the joints glued? Would we not look at the material and ask if there is something better we could use? Would we not look at a neighbors house to see how he may have built his diffently?

Sadly, we have chosen to live with our leaks because we refuse to question our original construction.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2009 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

What Dave forgets, like most conservatives, real or imaginary is that there MUST be limits on “free markets”.

Remember: the fundamental definition of limit of freedom is—your freedom to swing your arms stops at the end of my nose.  IOW, your “freedom” cannot impinge on mine.  Your freedom to pick up and take what you like ends when it means taking my stuff. It’s not anti-capitalist to protect private property and keep people from stealing it.

This includes theft by deception. Look at what Thomas H. Lee did to Simmons Mattress.  He and his investment firm bought the company, then loaded it up with debt solely to pay back his company.  They then forced employees to convert their retirement into company stock (shades of Enron).  Lee then loaded the company with oppressive debt, fooling lenders into thinking the company was worth more than it was, and NOW paid his own investment firm a “bonus” for managing Simmons so well.  Ultimately, Simmmons was loaded with an unmanageable debt of 500 million, which was just about what Lee took out of Simmons.  1000 employees lost their jobs and retirement.

Yet this deliberate mismanagement to rape a sound company is called “free enterprise” when it should be called fraud, and deceiving stock-holders.

A similar story happened to Reader’s Digest, a company with a long history of sound management (regardless of your views of their politics).  RD is now bankrupt where it had one of the soundest franchises in America and in the world.  What dentist’s office didn’t have RD in the waiting room?

This is all a segue to the idea of the branch of Economics called Public Economics. (When I took a class in it, I expected it to be dreadfully boring—BOY was I wrong! It was fascinating!)  The simplest and obvious concept is that there ARE resources that belong to everyone and therefore must be managed by government.

Think of a river.  If anyone can do anything they build nuclear plants on it, and don’t take actions to protect the water life, dumping hot water in it, even water with nuclear waste.  Or a paper-processing plant can dump all their waste into it.  Or a town can simply dump their sewers into it.

All this kills the fish, or renders them poisonous.  Beaches are destroyed and the river becomes a toxic waste sewer.  This is the story of the Hudson River when Pete Seeger began his Clearwater project to clean it up.

Rivers, forests, mineral deposits, wetlands, even road and rail-road right-of-ways are ALL public goods that need to be managed for the common good, not for the sole good of profit-making enterprises.

Remember: It’s cheaper to dump your waste in the river than to treat it and properly dispose of the waste safely.

THIS is failure of “free market capitalism”, something even Milton Friedman, the father of “Supply Side Economics” did NOT advocate. This is the failure of the neocons, the Cheneyites, and the Goldman,Sachs and AIG executives, and their paid stooges in the Bush regime.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 18, 2009 at 1:37 am Link to this comment

No Man’s Land:

“I wonder what courrupted them so badly”

The “old house” analogy is a good one.  Dry rot is like corruption.  It starts out from a small leak, but over time, large sections become rotted and the house starts to sag. 

You avoid it by being vigilant regarding small leaks.

You correct it by cutting out the areas which have become rotted because you were not vigilant.

Simply put, “They” become corrupted so badly because we, as citizens, are not vigilant. We don’t even pay attention that well during elections.  And when rot is discovered, we do not cut it out quickly. 

With rot, it is better to be proactive.  Cut it out if it is even suspected of being rotten.  Rot does not have rights.  Unfortunately, I think rotten politicians have rights.  Maybe we could do something about that.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 17, 2009 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3:

“I am ready to shitcan the whole bunch”

I wonder what courrupted them so badly. Must be all that public campaign financing. Like it or not, your democracy has been bought and paid for. Sorry you were left out. Join the club.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook