Some two-thirds of the comments to my recent Sacramento News and Review piece calling for a new human movement to avert the climate crisis informed me that “bought off” climate scientists and those of us who believe them are “scumbags,” “cockroaches,” “assholes,” “leeches,” “lunatics,” “fanatics,” “stupid,” “liars,” “dorks,” “treasonous,” “the enemy,” “socialistic,” “elitist scared wimps,” “foolish,” “hacks,” “jokers,” “frauds,” “criminal frauds,” “zealots” and “mindless followers” who “despise America (sic)” and “want to steal U.S. wealth” and “we really do not need ya.” Al Gore, I learned, is an “ignorant moron” who deserves to die, and I am “a propagandist of the worst kind” whose “mind is rotted from the inside out,” and that “deep down, you know that you are a small man … with a shriveled heart.” “No, there is NO GLOBAL WARMING,” I was instructed, and the real issue is “does this author [me] deserve to live.”
My first response was a mix of wonder, sadness and anger. How could people who have not studied the complexities of climate science work themselves into such a frenzy against those who have? Why were they uninterested in communicating, or even swaying the undecided, but only focused on degrading and dehumanizing? Were they seeking relief from self-hatred and unhappy lives by projecting their despair outwards? Could people with loving relationships and meaningful work behave like this? I also felt the same rush of righteous anger as I suppose they did, and found myself thinking of how I could respond in kind.
And then my adult, rational, human brain took over from my reptile one.
While America has always experienced angry debate, today’s intellectual violence—featuring people anonymously spewing vicious personal Internet attacks rather than debating ideas—feels different. It is part of a general coarsening and dehumanization of the culture, as previously responsible media members seek to boost profits by provoking anger and bile, humiliating the well-known and setting talking heads screaming at each other. Facts, evidence and reason are irrelevant. Billionaire media moguls shamelessly and cynically provide a platform to broadcasters claiming without any evidence whatsoever that a U.S. president favors killing seniors or is creating his own private police force. Many folks, it seems, experience their deepest feelings in front of a TV set or computer screen rather than interacting with actual human beings.
Those who dehumanize political opponents are the moral equivalents of those in 1920s Germany who broke up meetings rather than engage in debate. They are primarily a danger to themselves at this point. But if, as I believe, we face years of joblessness and falling incomes, political unrest, class warfare and a growing threat of domestic terrorism due to our failed international policies, this kind of dehumanization could destroy what remains of our democracy. The rise of authoritarianism has always been preceded by this kind of objectifying of “the other.”
Advertisement
I am particularly disturbed when I see people with whom I agree politically demean their opponents as “wing nuts,” “crazies,” etc. I believe it’s especially important for those of us advocating peace, social justice and saving the biosphere to live our ideals. Martin Luther King Jr. and the nonviolent civil rights movement faced far more verbal and physical violence than do we. They triumphed because they remembered their humanity and did not stoop to demeaning others. Progressives and liberals need to embody the compassion and empathy they claim to seek for society as a whole if they are to prevail.
In addition to such political conclusions, I had a more personal reason for not indulging my anger. I most hurt myself, not others, when I dehumanize my opponents. The enjoyable rush of self-righteous anger is followed by an irritable letdown, producing the need for another anger rush. I believe that “there but for the grace of God go I.” Had I grown up with these folks’ genes, parents and environment, I would behave as they do. I am at my best when I can remember that my political opponents are also human beings. It is healthy to first feel my anger. But I seek to then release it and try to engage my critics as human beings—for my own soul, no matter how they respond.
I responded to two folks who had e-mailed me directly.
To the first, who had written that I had a “rotten mind” and “shriveled heart,” I wrote: “I appreciate your taking the time and effort to send me this message. … I think it’s great when anyone takes the trouble to care about a public policy issue, even if they disagree with me.”
I also wrote, “I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of what can happen to societies when people so dehumanize and objectify each other. If climatologists are ‘leeches’ and ‘criminals,’ why allow them to practice this profession? Shouldn’t they be fired, perhaps even jailed, perhaps even eliminated? How can our society remain healthy if ‘cockroaches’ like this continue to attack the body politic? It all began with words like this in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, my friend. It all began with words like this.” I added, “If you would like to establish human-to-human communication, I am open to that.”
The writer responded with even greater vitriol and, after fruitlessly reaching out to him once more, I regretfully had to spam him out of my life.
I wrote a similar message to a second correspondent, who had written that I was part of the “radical environmental left” who “lie and scare the hell out of people with their liberal media lies.” He responded: “I sincerely apologize to you for coming across that way. I will refrain from that type of behavior in the future. I would still like to communicate on the issues that are important to us, such as what we need to do to avert climate change. Again, please accept my apologies.”
These differing responses strengthened my conviction that those of us who object to intellectual violence need to stand up to it. It’s far easier to ignore it or respond in kind. But I doubt that democracy and freedom, in which those dehumanizing their opponents claim to believe, can survive unless there is a backlash to their behavior. My bottom line: Attack ideas as vigorously as desired, but not the character, motivation or humanity of one’s opponents. Challenge the attacks, but not the humanity of the attacker.
America will clearly face unprecedented economic, international and climate challenges in the coming years. Whether we meet them will largely depend upon our ability to remember our common humanity and communicate with each other as the suffering human beings we all are.
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.
Liecatcher ... I’d like to bite, but I’m confused, LOL. First a partial answer, then to my confusion:
The agenda mentioned was a reference to the election that put Obama in the Oval Office and gave Democrats a congressional majority. Personally, I view the shift to a Democratic majority as a rejection by We the People of Bush’s agenda and the ideologies of the Republican party. Speaking only for myself, I see this power shift as a mandate from “We the People” which, in turn, can be construed as the broad outlines of a new national agenda based on issues debated throughout the campaign season, regardless of specific candidate or office.
This agenda called for a substantial reversal of the previous administration’s goals and actions, including: national, single-payer health care, less or no involvement with conflicts in “Piraqastan” as Dubya might have called it, no more off-budget, pre-emptive wars, eliminating the more egregious parts of the Patriot Act, a reversal of trickle-down economics and tax policies, reversing the absolute power of a Unitary Executive, recomitting to the Geneva Convention, closing Gitmo and other “dark sites,” etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Does that answer the agenda question?
Now, my confusion. You said you were adding a paragraph “which I wrote in response to a health care article to give you more context for your response if you desire to respond. I believe CHRIS HEDGES’ COLUMN “Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction.”
The paragraph you added for context discussed the numbing and dumbing down of America, MIPIC and how easily sheeple are guided.
Whew! I could rant on THAT topic until our eyes bleed. But I’m missing the relevance of how your paragraph provides more context in which to frame my response. Please elaborate a bit more on how your response to the health care article relates to my original post and I’ll take a shot at providing a reply.
Incidentally, I’m not familiar with Chris Hedges’ “Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction” column. But if you like the title, I suggest reading an insightful work called “Democracy in America,” by de Tocquville, a French essayist and social commentator published circa 1835. (1835, not 1935, is correct. The man was way ahead of his time. Brilliant read.)
Look forward to hearing from you so we can bandy this about some more.
Rotten Minds, Shriveled Hearts and Human Souls
Posted on Feb 1, 2010 By Fred Branfman
TO: Bucky5, February 7 at 2:58 pm
“However, it is time to take the gloves off, step
around the obstructionists
and move forward with the agenda set forth by We the
People.”
Hey Bucky5:
My first thought was to simply ask you what that
agenda is & who
is going to lobby it for We the People. However, I
decided to add
the following paragraph which I wrote in response to
a health care
article to give you more context for your response if
you
desire to respond. I believe CHRIS HEDGES’ COLUMN
“Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction”
The numbing & dumbing down of America leading to its
enslavement is not an accident or coincidence, but
rather the result of careful planning & execution by
generations of illuminati
whose goal is to enslave the world. These elitists
control the media, have unlimited resources & think
tank propaganda experts who brainwash the masses
while pretending to offer unbiased information.
MIPIC,e.g., MEDICAL INSURANCE PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIAL CONSPIRACY, has convinced the populace
that its products & services are needed to :
breathe, eat, sleep, defecate, pass gas, prevent
flatus, lower cholesterol, lose weight, overcome
anxiety, etc.,etc. And, once hooked on their powders,
pills, potions, vaccines & other concoctions, MIPIC
owns them from cradle to grave & they become easily
“guided” sheeple.
The words “civil” and “civic” derive from the same Latin root and have closely overlapping meanings. However, it appears the point under discussion is civil discourse in civic matters. Thus, precision and specificty are important.
The conservative right wants to engage in civic action without benefit of civil discourse. More moderate and/or liberal progressives want to use civil discourse as a catalyst for effecting civic change. From the get-go, neither side seems able to grasp the other’s intent, motivation, nor the means by which they hope to achieve their ends.
To wit, the battle over abolition between North and South is called the Civil War. (Now there’s an oxymoron!) Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it the Civic War? Likewise, the Revolutionary War. The Brits lost because they fought in a civil manner.
Okay. So I’m pushing it to make a point—that words have a profound effect on perception which, in turn, impacts the tactics a group uses to achieve its goals.
The Democrats/liberals are hung up on civility. I applaud the moral stance. However, throughout the Bush administration, and now with (essentially) full control of all legislative branches of our government, the application of civil tactics to civic matters has proven ineffective.
Obama’s futile, ongoing insistance on bipartisan support is now interpreted as nothing short of weakness by both sides. Pelosi’s unbending devotion to civility, e.g., “impeachment is off the table,” resulted in a complete abbrogation of her civic duty to protect and defend the Constitution.
Civil behavior regarding civic matters can be effective only when one stops confusing civility with etiquette. The intersection of civics and civility need not exlude disagreement and vigorous debate. If, as is currently the case, one side refuses to engage in informed debate, direct confrontation and challenge expressed in a civil manner should be expected and encouraged.
Perhaps Mr. Freeze crossed a line in calling for a foot on the throat of those with whom we disagree. However, it is time to take the gloves off, step around the obstructionists and move forward with the agenda set forth by We the People.
I don’t think that’s an effective long term strategy, nor a role model for behavior.
But when the violent encounter no resistance, they are sometimes encouraged in their behavior.
It is not just a matter of challenging values that are morally bankrupt, venal and preternaturally destructive; it is also a matter of challenging those who would surrender to values that are morally bankrupt, venal and preternaturally destructive.
Meanwhile, we need the likes of Mr. Branfman and most of those commenting on this to keep us focused on the high road,
Oh my god, I give up. Apparently everyone just wants
to shout for their team and to hell with everyone else.
And some of you seem to belong to a team of one.
Mr Freeze - I cannot believe you just said that without
irony; consider my mind boggled. Appalling.
Mrfreeze what then would differentiate us from them? We need to heed Nietzsche‘s warning about turning into our enemies if we adopt their tactics and fight them in a way that is like them. See the dilemma?
I’m afraid that as high-minded and intellectually correct as Mr. Branfman is in this post, to attempt any reconciliation with the political Right in the U.S. is to surrender to a set of values that is morally bankrupt, venal and preternaturally destructive.
It is not in one’s best interest to show weakness or give quarter to those who lean to the Right. Period, end of story. If Mr. Branfman is disturbed by all the name calling and “coarse language” he should remind himself that these folks are THE ENEMY and deserve to be treated as such. It is dangerous to show them mercy. I say stomp on their collective neck. They’d do the same to you in a heart beat.
A long time ago when this line first got started I commented on what I called “foul language” and somebdy promptly called me on it. For which thanks,
Since that post, many people have commented, and the overwhelming concensus is that denigration, insult, invective, whatever you call it whether four-letter words or otherwise, shows a kind of mean-spirited personal attack that lowers the quality of comments.
I’m grateful for this long discussion and glad to see so many thoughtful comments about fairness and civility and dignity.
I still think that the reason commentators use “street language” is not only to cause injury but to set a nasty emotional tone which they hope will revolt people who want to discuss something thoughtfully. I think they hope to discourage intelligent give-and-take communication in general.
They hope by doing this to support a generalized anti-intellectualism that is all too common in this country. It is great to see that they have not made any points here.
To felicity:
Yes, money has something to do with it, I think—but it seems to me that “fashion” is involved too—the desire to appear “cool” and “in” and “tough” and “with it” “street-smart” etc. etc. Another element that fortifies the urge to hurt is American’s historical insistance on reward for competition in preference to participation; me-first, “don’t tread on me!”(threatening) plus influence of gangster culture, macho masculine supremacy.
Then there’s our cultural adoration of brute strength over “snobbish intellectualism”—the “workin’ stiff” as superior to the “suit.” Aggressive preferable to passive or conciliatory. It’s everywhere in our daily lives and the more you look the more you see.Our pioneer history also plays a big role, unconsciously of course.
Why bother with all this “superspection”? The first step toward joining the human race might be to recognize the many convoluted roots of language. Take “levels of speech”, for instance, where some languages have deeply incorporated differences in the way different people speak to different people, up, down, sidewise, to solidify class, rank etc.
I may be wrong, but I think democracy particularly and deliberately dropped deferentials in order to commonalize the language, more one level for all.
Dirty” language is apparently an attempt to degrade opponents and make them feel inferior. Language is altogether fascinating—a jungle, a universe, a dangerous treasury of almost divine powers.
I happen (from sheer we-fell-into-it-years-ago-luck) to live in a very upscale, wealthy area of Southern California. Rude, entitled, self-centered actually do my neighbors justice.
Last week I suggested to the people living in front of me that we clean up our outside area because it looked like a pig sty and the neighbors shouldn’t have to look at a pig sty. Their comment? “Fuck the neighbors.”
Years ago, we told a neighbor that loud raucous outdoor parties at 3 am needed to stop so we could all get some sleep. His reply? “If you don’t like it, move.”
The question we ask each other is, is this what too much money does to people and if so, why.
As never before, it is time for all humanity to raise its’ collective voice in unison to say, it is time to come together and let compassion and tolerance take the lead in our future.
Our planet is dying because of the greed of a few for more and more money and power. The good old USA is failing to uphold the standards that were set so many years go. No longer does the good for all seem to matter.
Granted there are so many problems worldwide and the the standards of living all over the world are so unbalanced and tragic that all our tears would drown humanity out.
With the money that is floating around taking care of many insignificant things instead of being used to solve the problems, we should all be ashamed, ashamed of our leaders who apparently have finally hit the end of the road and don’t have the slightest idea of what the heck to do. We have never seen so much corruption, incompetence, stuborrness and down right negligence of duty that it is possible it many never be turned around.
For those who believe there is a higher power, no matter what the name is, and for those who do not believe in a higher power, collectively do believe that this could be a much better world. For those that volunteer their services year after year with nearly no help from the sources of the high and mighty and the obscenely rich, still keep going because they know that even one child, or one family, or one species all have a right o food and water and shelter. It really does not take much but so much is needed that many people don’t even know where to begin. It is time for judgmental and the intolerant to sit back and stop thinking abut themselves and take the first steps but unfortunately they won’t and that is so sad.
The exorbitant retirement pays and bonuses etc. could probably be cut in half and the other half donated to whatever cause they care about most (if they care at all) and this sharing of wealth could bring so much more to the world. Kudos to those that do.
Yes, we are a capitalistic society and it worked for a long time but it is not working well in the way that it should. Just a few small changes that could be made are not being made and I am afraid that the worse is yet to come.
Democracy is a wonderful concept in itself, yet all nations do not and will not wish to follow the example of the USA entirely. The world seems to have turned on the Americans and it is no ones fault but our own. We ourselves no longer have a democracy such as was set up by our forefathers and the past administration did its best to destroy it one law at a time. To state that the “Constitution is nothing but a God damned piece of paper” just showed that we had an administration that listened to no one but its arrogant and inept self. Our democracy is meant to grow with a little tweaking here and there but it can never keep growing with those that in power keep stopping it from that growth.
The citizens of the United States spoke in November but some with deaf ears can’t seem to hear what was said. We now have a new congress and they apparently had good intentions but will they follow through with them? Probably not most of them. They are to busy fighting with each other.
The citizens of the United States, perhaps not all, want accountability of past and present. They must be made accountable for the damage they have incurred not only to their own country but to the world at large.
Yes, we should never listen to fools like Thomas Jefferson. Where on earth would we be as a country if we listened to people like that?
““God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.” -by Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover’s Jefferson On Democracy, ed., 1939”
Lunaclara, I agree that anonymity is what bring out
into the open what is normally hidden.
However, I am trying to offer an additional point for
discussion here, and no one’s picked up on it so I
try once more:
Isn’t it possible that the issue here is not one of
manners, decorum, conventional civility but rather
one of people who strongly identify with a position?
When this topic is raised suddenly everyone’s a model
of respectfulness because they want to look like one
of the good guys; every other page if full of slander
and bile. I don’t think that merely reminding
everyone to be nice polite girls and boys will have
any lasting effect. I have certainly tried in the
past and it achieved nothing. If anything, people
enjoy mocking a schoolmarm and delight in being worse
than ever behind her back as there is now an added
transgressive thrill.
In my view the real problem (which is where we should
look for a real solution) is that PEOPLE DON’T REALLY
LISTEN. They do not have a sensitive, receptive
state of mind. They cannot read what someone else
has said without mentally crowding it out with
refutations and counter-attacks. People don’t simply
listen - they listen-to-refute or listen-to-agree
depending on their preconceptions about the speaker
or the issue at hand. The speaker never has a chance
to actually be heard so no real discussion can take
place and everyone becomes more intractable and
isolated than before.
MANNERS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. Belief is the issue.
Faith in ‘facts’ and principles is irrational. The
world is dynamic and beyond human ken; we are all
trying to tack our sails to the wind and muddle along
as best we can. It is like a narcotic high to try to
pretend that “I am on the side of the Good Guys who
believe X about immigration and Y about law and
order” but it’s just hubris, and hubris long predates
the Internet.
By samantha68, February 4, 2010 at 1:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
IT IS TIME
As never before, it is time for all humanity to raise it’s collective voice in unison to say, we have had enough. Enough of all the nastiness, corruption, name calling, silly lawsuits, to raise our voices to say it is time to come together and let compassion and tolerance take the lead in our future.
Our planet is dying because of the greed of a few for more and more money and power. The good ole USA is failing to uphold the standards that were set so many years ago. No longer does for the good of all seem to matter.
Granted, there are so many problems worldwide and it does not seem the nations of the world are taking them head on. The standards of living all over the world are so unbalanced and tragic that all our tears would drown humanity out.
With the money that is floating around taking care of many insignificant things instead of some of it being used to solve these problems, we should all be ashamed. Ashamed of our leaders who can’t seem to get together as one body but don’t seem to have the courage to do something. There seems to be so much more corruption, incompetence, stubborness and down right negligence of duty that it is possible it may never be turned around.
For those who believe there is a high power, no matter what the name is, and for those who do not believe in a higher power, collectively do believe that this could be a much better world. For those that volunteer their services year after year with nearly no help from the sources of the high and mighty and the obscenely rich, still keep going becuse they know that even one child, or one family or one species, all have a right to food and water and shelter. It really does not take much but so much is needed that many do not know where to begin. It is time for the judgemental and intolerant to sit back and stop thinking about themselves and take those first steps but unfortunately probably won’t. Kudos to all those that do.
The exorbitant retirement pays and bonuses, etc. could probably be cut in half and the rest donated to whatever cause they care about most (if they care at all) and this sharing of wealth could bring so much more to the world.
Yes, we are a capitolistic society and it has worked for quite some time but it does not seem to be working any longer in the way that it should. Just a few small changes that could be made are not being made and I fear the worst is yet to come.
Democracy is a wonderful concept in itself, yet all nations do not and will not wish to follow the example of the USA entirely. The world has turned on the Americans and it is no ones fault but our own. We ourselves have a democracy such as was set up by our forefathers and it seems a past administration seemed to have done its best to make sure it was being destroyed one law at a time. The statement that the Constitution was nothing but a “God damned piece of paper” just showed an administration that listened to none but some pompous arrogant inept selves. The above thoughts are not mine alone but those of many others also.
Our democracy is meant to grow with some tweaking here and there but will not with some in power want to stop it.
The citizens of the United States spoke in Nov. We now have a new Congress and a man as President with some good intentions but will any of them be followed through.
Accountability of those now in office and those who are not would probably benefit our country.
Mose importantly those who did so much damage to our country and the world at large should still be accountable.
Should this happen perhaps we will stop sliding down the slippery slope to becoming a third world nation.
I think that a very large number of folks who post vitriol on internet sites do it because it is often anonymous. In my experience, attempts to bring greater civility are generally ignored or ridiculed.
Of course, folks spew this stuff in the real world, too. It just seems to be less pervasive, and people seem more likely to be ashamed of behaving that way.
I am a firm believer in the good cop, bad cop approach. Fred is the good cop. Keith Olbermann is a bad cop. Rachel Madow manages to be both.
Fred’s strategy is legitimate and necessary, but it cannot be sufficient.
People who deny facts and evidence, are not going to be swayed by facts and evidence. They will only be swayed by their own experience.
The challenge is to connect their experience with broader issues.
But also to remind them of the line by Maggie Thatcher, (not one of my heroes, normally) that when you attack me personally, it can only mean that you have no available arguments against my policies. (I suspect she said it a bit more succinctly.)
Or Will Rogers: “It ain’t what you don’t know that will hurt you; it’s what you know that ain’t so.”
Politicians need to be guided by an understanding that changing one’s experience can change one’s viewpoint. That was the logic of Civil Rights legislation. There were those who argued that governments can not legislate behavior. We learned that they can, even if not as quickly as we might like.
Paid pundits like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck are legitimate targets for personal attacks in my view. Yet there are comments on this page that are not far removed from the same warped world perception. I’m unlikely to waste my psychic energy on them.
I’m searching for an appropriate epithet for Bill O’Reilly. The best I can do is the Jack Torrance (The Shining) of Fox News. But I won’t hesitate to call Glenn Beck a chipmunk in jack boots.
But the best strategy of all is humor. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert put everything into perspective.
I agree and attempt to maintain that decorum. Only rarely do I succumb such as when another fool posts the idea that a new revolution, like the failed French one is a good idea for this country. That is over the line.
Thank you for making these astute points. One section in particular really made me sit up and take notice because I was just saying something similar yesterday. “I most hurt myself, not others, when I dehumanize my opponents. The enjoyable rush of self-righteous anger is followed by an irritable letdown, producing the need for another anger rush.” I’ve been studying this phenomena in the YouTube community, where people are more likely to tell you to ‘go kill yourself’ than engage in discourse if you disagree with them. Responding in kind is reactionary and does nothing to further the conversation (though admittedly it does feel good in the moment).
We all need to work on bringing civility back into the public forum. The anonymity of the internet combined with the vitriolic language radio and t.v. commentators employ seems to have given us permission (in our own minds) to treat one another in a sub-human manner over the smallest difference. While most of us, whether we participate in this behavior or not, do recognize on some level that this low form of communication goes against the basic etiquette we learn in childhood, we have rationalized it by turning those who disagree with us into the enemy that must be defeated- in this case defeat comes by the pen rather than the sword.
Again, thank you for verbalizing a concern so many have today. I hope this article is encountered by many because sadly, many need to be reminded to mind their manners.
I generally don’t see much communication going on in
forums like this one - people prefer to reinforce their
beliefs by creating a boldly-defined enemy to whom one
attributes everything that is opposite to what one
stands for.
The problem is their strongly-held beliefs and the
existential sense of meaning and solidity that they
confer. The problem is NOT one of mere manners.
Polite, classy people will vilify and exterminate in
polite, classy ways if they have to.
By goldnsilver, February 2, 2010 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I think it’s good that you addressed name calling. I think that dehumanising our opponents is one of the easiest and most dangerous things to.
As an outsider, I watch Americans dig the trenchlines between Dem and Rep and both sides are as bad as each other (every country has some form of this, for instance Australia has labor vs liberal, working class vs upper class. But I have to say that Americans have made a national pass-time out of political affliation).
However, behaving passive aggressively isn’t much of a step up (as your did with the “I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of what can happen to societies when people so dehumanize and objectify each other. If climatologists are ‘leeches’ and ‘criminals,’ why allow them to practice this profession?), although it might make the point a bit more eloquently then %&$%$%&J@ would.
Progressives get an unlikely champion in Palin! Although I don’t agree with her, of course. There are much better reasons for Rahm Emanuel to lose his job than this. According to Branfman, however, we need to help Palin tar and feather him: “These differing responses strengthened my conviction that those of us who object to intellectual violence need to stand up to it.”
Pick your poison, venom from Republicans or the attempts to silence opposition from Democrats.
Truthdig should not get a pass here either. Most of these articles are left to insightful posters such as No Man’s Land and Samson to actually “Dig Beneath the Headlines”.
Even given my tendency to maintain a certain level of civility in my political discourse with those on the right, I still respectfully reject any comparison between the vitriol or factual basis on the right and left.
Saying the extremes of the right and left are equally guilty of mendacious comments and attack, like the MSM is wont to do, doesn’t make it so.
Malicious attack has long been a feature of the right, due in large part to the fact that their policies are so wrong for so many.
Ascribing the same MO to those on the left that have been as correct as they have been ignored for so long, when their long suffering finally gives way to expressions of outrage normally below them, does not a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck make.
In reading the comments below, I often think that the two-dimensional political spectrum that tries to put everything from ‘left’ to ‘right’ is misleading.
What we have in America is corporate power that controls the government. As Dubya so well stated, you are either with them or agin them.
To the supporters of corporate power on the right, they try to portray all opposition as ‘leftist’. Or usually as socialist or communist.
This is just playing a very simple “Us vs Them” card. Those who think of themselves as on the right or as conservative automatically think of the left as the enemy. They’ve been trained to think this way. Thus, when the corporate propaganda paints any efforts to constrain global warming (that might hurt corporate short term profits) as a ‘leftist’ agenda, all they are really doing is telling their right-leaning audience that they should hate this agenda. Its a way of building opposition without actually making the audience think.
You see the same the other direction of course as well. Notice all the Democrats try to blame the Republicans for everything. The Democrats know that many people are upset at them for continuing the wars, giving our billions to wall street, and for backing corporate profits over people’s health care. So, most of the Democrat propaganda focuses on the Republicans in the Senate as the bad guys, with the distraction of a fake debate over the 200+ year old filibuster added on top. The whole idea is to get their supporters vaguely mad at the bad guys on the right.
Over time, they get unthinking people on the right trained to think automatically that ‘left is bad’, while the unthinking people on the left are trained to think automatically that ‘right is bad’. Once this is established, they can create a quick (but unthinking) opposition to any policy simply by calling it a ‘left’ policy or a ‘right’ policy depending on the target unthinking audience.
I have the following quote near the top of the page on my blog (commondebate.blogspot.com)
““In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” —Justice Louis Brandeis”
Government, politicians, corporate media, they’ve all done a very good job of teaching this behavior. Its not that it was never around before. But it wasn’t socially acceptable. Not when politics was face to face in a small town. Now, these powerful forces in our society all act in exactly this manner, thus making everyone else believe that this is the way they should act as well.
And, I likewise cringe when I see this same behavior from ‘the left’. I always believe that its best to try to argue thoughts and ideas and not just to call someone names like ‘wing-nut’.
Most frightening is that the ‘dehumanizing’ of a people is a prelude to violence. Its hard to kill or harm another person if you think of them as another person just like you with the same loves and fears and desires. But, if you can start to just think of them as a ‘rag-head’, then its much easier to pull the trigger.
At times I tend to think of the US as being in a similar state to 1930’s Spain before the coup. This lack of any tolerance or ability to talk to others is not a good thing for a nation.
Progressives and liberals need to embody the compassion and empathy they claim to seek for society as a whole if they are to prevail.
This can also be translated as: “Stop dumping on Obama”. It’s gotten to the point that I can’t tell if Mr. Branfman is serious or if this essay is another shot in the Democrats’ propaganda campaign to keep progressives voting for their party.
I just watched the youtube question and answer
with our pres that they sprayed accross my home
google page.
What a softball bunch of questions,,,that they
say weren’t screened.
The health care question was asked in a manner that
the Obama could put the problem with Capitol Hill.
Nothing about the text of the bill.
on the one war question, it thought george bush
was answering it.
I AM SO TRYING TO REMAIN CIVIL !!!!!
gerard there is no such thing as “foul language” just words that describe things. They have their places but you will always find those who rely on them over all else. The “foul language” goes back to the conquest of Briton in 1066 by the Normans who made the local language to be obscene. So you can say feces but not shit, coitus but not fuck etc. even though they mean the same thing. Do you understand? Most I speak about this don’t. Their minds are locked into the particular kind of conditioning they have experienced for they life spans.
Fred Branfman is correct and we need to stop deprecating our foes but instead engage them with reason, logic & of course the facts. But if they are truly irrational then nothing like that will persuade them. For the die hard Nazi, such things as rationality is laughed at. They are ruled by their ideology/theology and nothing can move them away from it. But do not play their game their way. Disarm them, charm them but do not become thugs like them. Don’t taunt and above all do not show weakness because they are predatory, just like bullies and will go after you if they think they can.*
Be diplomatic, but not meek and weak. Once can show strength without killing or maiming. But most of all you must know who you are and do not veer from it.
*Nietzsche warned against becoming the monsters with whom you fight. The enemy with whom you engage, if you adopt their tactics and outcomes then what differs you from them?
Apart from the contest between who is right and who is wrong and who emerges as the winner, we all lose when the proposed solutions devolve into austerity measures imposed upon the populace, as those proposed by those who control the message are but must avoid being revealed. Thus, we miss the forest for the trees. Those who created the conditions are not held accountable. It is always the people, the victims, who must pay to clean it up, never those of power and privilege, never the perpetrators. That’s what is so outrageous to me, the never-ending shifting of the burden of the consequences away from the Corporate mafia Dons to John Q. Public, while Uncle Sam turns the other way and rewards the Dons. Witness the most recent budget for USA, Inc., where there is no check on the war profiteers, but domestic spending (it’s OUR money we’re talking about here) is frozen. Is this not an act of class warfare?
“[The ruling elites] know who their enemies are, and their enemies are the people, the people at home and the people abroad. Their enemies are anybody who wants more social justice, anybody who wants to use the surplus value of society for social needs rather than for individual class greed, that’s their enemy.”
(Michael Parenti)
“Corporate America is intent on eliminating taxes on all capital incomes. Nor do they care if record budget deficits are the result. Many of their more right-wing friends, including those in Congress, actually want larger deficits. They see chronic, record deficits as producing the budget crisis necessary to use as an excuse to privatize Social Security and dismantle what remains of the Roosevelt New Deal programs of the 1930s.”
(Jack Rasmus)
“America’s punitive and reactive response to crime is an integral part of the new social Darwinism, the criminal justice counterpart of an increasingly harsh attack on living standards and social supports, especially for the poor ... America [is] a society in which a permanent state of social disintegration is held in check only by the creation of a swollen apparatus of confinement and control that has no counterpart in our own history or in any other industrial democracy.”
(Elliott Currie)
“Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal ‘executive branch’ of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens.”
(Chalmers Johnson)
I,too object to using psychological disability terms for opponents, such as “wingnuts” “crazies” “loonies” or other ableist language. I think it’s OK to argue with an opponent and to be nasty, but politely. Am an older woman. Doing a countdown to 7 0 at last day of this month—no leap year day, sigh.
To gerard, it’s OK to make a mistake and double click. I do it,too.
I read all the comments and was amused that one name I recall has mixed up plain old criticism with using foul language.
Using the language I dislike, mentioned in first sentence, is old old in US politics. Saw it in a book, “We Are Lincoln’s Men” by Prof. David Herbert Donald, 2003, writing about how the language in a Lincoln campaign. Same old insults! on the mental state of the opponent.
Rotten Minds, Shriveled Hearts and Human Souls
Posted on Feb 1, 2010 By Fred Branfman
Ad hominem works & Rush gets 30 $million/year to spew
it.
At the end of a painful & complicated undergraduate
statistics
course, the Prof said that the most important thing
to consider
when evaluating a study, is who paid for it & who
benefits
from its acceptance. IOW, follow the money trail. I
also
believe predatory birds of a feather flock together.
Once it
sinks into one’s psyche that Democracy in America is
fiction,
and it has been replaced by Fascism, then the
principle players
are viewed more realistically. During the campaign
Obama was
the great black hope for the masses. Those playing
the devil’s
advocate claimed he wasn’t black enough. Now with
over a
years worth of lies under his belt, Bush3 is looked
at differently
by the people who were fooled but now see the light,
& those
still in the dark are crossing his bridge of hope to
nowhere &
continue to pray & hope while his cabal continues to prey.
Government Sachs will be the biggest beneficiary of
CAP &
TRADE. Al Gore, the Clintons, the Bush Crime Family &
related
cabals pursue a primary goal of a NWO:OWG, & they can
prove
anything they want to, including an imminent climate
cataclysm.
They are currently starving over one billion people
around the
world each year. They control the food supply &
pushed thru
the ethanol hoax. They promote perpetual wars.
So FRED BRANFMAN, don’t be surprised that so many
desperate
people without jobs, homes, or futures want to kill
the messenger, especially when his opinion hasn’t
caught up with reality yet.
We Americans like to think of ourselves and this great ‘experiment’ as not only great but unique in history when evidence would have it that we’re not.
Historically prosperous nations seem to inevitably drift into materialism and anti-intellectualism with almost predictable disastrous results. Combine that phenomenon with the stark observation that the mad rule of money and materialism as the measure of all things corrodes our very souls, and then add the fact that man made catastrophes (9/11) usually result in a state of domestic lawlessness as people go into survivor mode - and here we are.
The reason the environment is considered a “leftist” agenda is surprisingly
simple. The two competing sects in american politics approach societal
problems from two often uncomplimentary worldviews.
The left approaches problems from a humanist perspective that is based
on impact to society and the individual and prefers to alter systems.
approahes and cultures accordingly. Hence the left’s strong affinity for
justice and change.
The right approaches all problems from the perspective that the “invisible
hand of the market” is the great regulator. They tend to demand universal
homage to that philosophy and therefore reject individuality in favor
conformity to the collective market effort.
With respect to the environment, the right believes that regulation will hurt
business and therefore rejects even the science. They will not come on
board unless they can be convinced that the market wants it and there is
money to be made from it.
By Granny Geese, February 2, 2010 at 10:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Quantcast, a market analysis company engages all 220 million U.S. Internet users, providing detailed audience profiles for the advertising marketplace.
According to Quantcast, following a five month trend; Truthdig traffic is 94% US, 71% male, of whom 94% have no kids. 33% make $60k to $100k per year and 33% make more than $100k per year.
Of this group, 97% are white, 44% have some college and 35% graduated.
So, according to the stats, comments here are from a majority of white, US, men with no kids, who’s majority has more income than the national average, of whom less than half have some college while roughly one third actually graduated.
What does that tell us?
That the majority of comments are coming from white men with limited advanced education, ample money and too much time on their hands!
And what’s that got to do with climate change and name calling?
Not much other than people with limited education tend to be people with limited intellect. And people with ample income and too much time on their hands tend to be easily amused, or distracted, or worst of all influenced. And people who live to drown our government in a bathtub also live to drown us in a bathtub, since us, that would be we the people are the government. So they use the best tool around that holds appeal to those with limited intellect. Stringing offensive words together.
This works very well since those with limited intellect, ample income and too much time on their hands, can remember the string without having to understand what’s behind it. Don’t believe me? Next time you run into someone who wisely [sic] exclaims offensive expletives regarding a real issue, ask them to explain the real issue. Don’t be surprised if the majority cant.
Humankind will fade away one day because it was so busy screaming at each other. Global warming, over-fishing, pollution, indiscriminate use of WMDs, uncontrolled nuclear waste, deforestation, rampant greed, overspending on the military, raping of the environment from a myriad of venues, decimation of the Earth’s flora and fauna, and the rapid disappearance of potable water will eventually do us all in.
Humans have one hope: evolve into a new species that can live off the poisonous slag that remains after homo sapiens kills itself off. Here’s to the rise of Homo Pollutis !! (We can also hope evolution leaves behind the vocal chords like a vestigial vermiform appendix.)
By GW=MCHammered, February 2, 2010 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“Obama’s administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans’ Depression, caused by the Bush administration’s ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.”
By bozhidar, February 2, 2010 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
People who shout USA, USA, USA, God Bless America, and believe in its greatness [prefection?]wld find any change from usual practice causing impairment to or diminishment of the same.
And when they look up in the sky or sniff the air, they natchurally see nothing unusual. tnx
By nick, February 2, 2010 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
you would act the same if you had same parents, environment and genes, I would leave out the genes part, the point is that communities make us who were are, I kind of thought that was your point, it is about the type of fellowship we want to cultivate, the gene inclusion is pointless and takes away from the gist of your article
By nava, February 2, 2010 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
why is global warming a leftist agenda ? The evidence for the climate crisis is so striking that it cannot be dismissed. Most objections in politics are not driven by principles but personal vendetta. This is a clear example of how politicians or media inspired by politics can eradicate the blight of the malignancies of our beautiful world. So it should be outside the gamut of dirty politics.
China is making progress in developing green energy source and cutting down carbon emission apart from from levying renewable energy tax.. is that just a means to boost its own image in the international scene or is it a genuine effort to fight the climatic challenge. What ever be it I endorse it and I strongly support the need for a new human movement to avert the crisis for the betterment of humanity.
I was told by my father when I was young “Life isn’t a shouting contest”.. to this day I regard that as one of the most insightful and valuable things he ever said to me.
On the other hand if life isn’t a shouting contest then American politics and society and more in these times certainly are! And it has been shown to us very clearly that when it comes to progressive social issues like climate change or health care or war (make a list) that the squeaky wheels get a lot of attention and grease.. That many of those noisy wheels are way out-of-round, even maybe cracked and way low on air.. doesn’t seem to matter.
So the question is; in this environment how does reason and clarity penetrate such a wall of noise and shouting?
When your opponent resorts to invectives and name calling, you have won ... period. It represents his failure to have any defense for your position. So, if one assumes this is true, the climate change scientists have won and deniers have lost. I mean, Inhofe went to Copenhagen and couldn’t find anyone to listen to him because he says nothing of substance.
As for ofer and his Gore and Hansen comment, it speaks for itself. Maybe you disagree with Gore’s politics and making money off climate change but how do you attack Hansen? He makes nothing from his work other than a salary and was in Bush’s dog house for 8 years because he refused to change his position. To me that is the essence of an ethical scientist ... refusing to buckle to political pressure. So ofer, I do believe Hansen completely. And Gore ... he is not important in either sense since he is not a scientist. I believe the science even if it is not 100%. Things are happening on this planet that pose a danger to large numbers of humans ... no matter if it is man-made or natural. If you are drowning or the river has run dry do you really care what the cause?
I hate to say it, but LBJ was right. The old analogy went something like this..
During one of LBJ’s campaigns, he told his chief of staff to go to the media and accuse his opponent of being a “dirty pig fucker”. The man told LBJ that his opponent was obviously not practicing in beastiality. LBJ told him, “I know that, I just want the son of a bitch to have to deny it!”
That’s how politics works in the US. You have to fire the first shot, and the last one. Because it is all that the mostly sheepish american public can understand.
There were once fistfights and challenges to duels on the floor of the Senate. I doubt that invective and passion are anything new at all.True that the internet makes available an opportunity for more such but it is still out there, whether public or private.
This nation is simply dying for real progressive leadership. In its absence we find an absurdity like the Tea Party movement gaining traction, Sarah Palin becoming creditable ( unbelievable) and folks so frustrated with a candidate who runs on one platform and governs on quite another that they sputter and rant.
The words of some Obama partisans match invective for invective, insult for insult those of Obama detractors. Hypocrisy much?
Global Warming is real and it is obvious. If we don’t stop it’s going to get out of control and the equalibria of the Earth’s systems will be changed to one that does NOT allow the specie Homo Sapiens to survive. We will all die, and most of the animal and plant species will die, too.
This will be like the Yucatan Meteor that ended the Dinosaur Era 65 million years ago.
To make it really, really Simple:
If you defecate in your drinking water, it will poison you.
I spend considerable energy writing comments in online newspapers. Everyday, I see an avalanche of exactly the type of ad hominem, abusive name calling cited in the article. Very little of it is directed at me.
I have reached the following conclusions in trying to persuade and enlighten people who conduct themselves in this manner:
1. write about areas of commonality (cutting the budget, restoring the people’s voice in government, addressing corruption and influence peddling)
2. be neither Democrat nor Republican in word nor deed
3. certain “hot” issues (abortion, gays in the military, even climate change) are not worth discussing with this group
4. focus on “cutting the budget” by showing how much waste there is in military spending (more than 760 foreign US military bases, more than 50% of discretionary spending, Obama’s military budget largest in history, it’s not a “defense” budget, it excludes hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending hidden in other budgets, it is bankrupting the US making the country weaker)
5. quote Eisenhower’s statement on the military-industrial complex and how it threatens our liberties (use the term “corporate welfare”)
6. talk about the corruption of our democracy by big money - In response to politicians are all bought and paid for, I point out it is big buck corporations who are buying them. In response to the recent Supreme Court decision, call for a cut-off of Federal contracts to any corporation that involves itself in “electioneering.” Take away the prize and you take away the incentive to campaign.
7. do not support candidates (every action yields an equal and opposite reaction) unless it’s a third party candidate
8. prove that both parties are responsible for the fiscal mess (refer to the “going nowhere” two party pendulum)
9. make a case that the country is in decline because military spending has made the US less competitive (high health care costs, poor education, lack of infrastructure investment, failure to invest in the American people)
10. talk about aggressive anti-trust enforcement to make markets truly competitive and less able to spend money controlling what happens in Washington.
If you find what you’re writing is outraging the outrageous, you need to change your approach. Persuasion requires you to keep your eye on the grape.
How about this? Part of the use of foul language is done by people who don’t know any better. Part of it comes from people who intentionally want to lower the standards of the site to the point where intelligent people who want to be helpful will simply withdraw out of disgust. And still another part is a kind of macho exhibitionism—habit developed in other contexts which spills over into attempts arising out of life frustrations in an attempt to communicate personal pain politically.
For all those reasons that NO_MANS_LAND
mentioned, I believe that the climate collapse
is most definitatly positive. It will give man
an idea of who really is in charge and what really
is important and neccessary .(for a while)
The planet intends on cleansing itself. Its rivers
its oceans, its SOILS, its atmosphere…..
Inherit the wind…... I sure apologize for any
offense you may have taken…It was sure not directed
tobe personal… Only my forty year frustrations with
Democrats and the media….
What the ultimate outcome of a global climate change
will be is only speculation by anyone..No physics
models can reproduce this.
I have my beliefs on it..that no buying and selling
of emissions is going to change anything but the
wallets of Wall Street. That this is a carbon recycle that has seemed to be going on since the
ice caps appeared two million years ago. That of
course we won’t be able to produce enough food for
the world’s present population. That the fifty year
time table that pundits want to give for preparation
is a hoax. That evaporation will be of much more
concern to man’s suvival than melting ice. We know
that the C02 ppm is much higher than at any time
of the present ice age. it is interesting to me..
I hope we prepare in the right manner, it doesn’t
seem likly though.
By Jim R, February 1, 2010 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bravo! That’s one of the reasons I read Truthdig daily.
Insightful analysis reasonably presented will somehow win out, the last thirty years of conservative triumphs notwithstanding.
It is daunting sometimes to respond on the web to an anonymous commenter whose spewing the usual nonsensical vitriol, with reason, facts, and some humor.
Even when I drop the exchange after a few salvos and let them get the last word I’m much more satisfied than they could ever be, by the factual presentation, class and tone of the comments when reviewing later - the comparison laid bare for the world to see.
Mediaite for one is a great example where the negative, mean spirited stuff is on full display, it typically runs 80/20 or thereabouts bad to good.
Not sure it really matters at this point. ‘Citizens United’ will prove to be the greatest act of violence on the American people by its government in history. That decision codified into the law what can only be called “The Regressive Era.” The poverty it will create, poor working conditions, environmental abuses, rising crime, and debt servitude should all be taken as acts of violence. The courts will be stacked and justice will become uniformly sympathetic to business and political power unlike we have known in this lifetime. If it gets bad enough, we will begin seeing an increase in vigilante justice, as was common in the late 19th century.
We all need to understand one thing. We just handed our democracy to a collective of corporations that are competing in a global market with child and slave labor. In doing so, political parties will become less relevant over time. So does anyone really think that something like the minimum wage will survive this? If we’re lucky, that’s all we’ll lose.
Like the author, I too am worried about the rise in polarizing rhetoric, but I would argue that its a symptom of many, many more problems. Let’s run through all the warning signs of failing states. These warning signs are or have been present before nearly every state collapse such as the Balkans, various African nations, or the Soviet Union.
-A weak, impotent, or otherwise unresponsive central government: check
-Decreasing state assets / liquidation of the public domain: check
-A weak and decling economy: check
-Historic sectarian divides/disputes: not severely
-Decreased confidence in government institutions and leadership: check
-Loss of access to life-sustaining resources: not on a large scale
-The disappearance of issue advocacy and the emergence of a cult of ideology or personality that is unconstrained with prinicples and morality. (in other words, if people abandoned the issues they care about because their leader or tribe does, that consititutes a cult IMO. For example, prior to Citizens United, conservatives were “quite” concerned about government corruption. After the decision by the 5 conservative judges, they embraced it): check
-Gross imbalance in the omnipresent business-labor tension within a society: check
-Tightening government controls and a decrease of human rights / civil liberties: check
-A widening wage gap and rising poverty rate: check
-Fringe beliefs entering the mainstream: check
-Emergence of sectarian fissures: on the rise
-An underclass of people that becomes a focal point for angry of nativism (such as muslims or hsipanic migrants): check
-Poor education: check
-A culture that openly embraces violence: check
-Easy access to weapons: check
-Weak sense of community: check
-A ratcheting up and embrace of violent and dehumanizing rhetoric in the public domain: check
-The lack of a counter message in the public domain to the violent rhetoric: check
-Rising acts of violence from the fringes: check
-Rising nationalism/conservative backlashes that suggests social insecurity and a desire to reclaim a sense of “greatness”: check
-A collective lack of hope: check
-An emotional “Powder keg” event, such a high profile assassination: not yet
If it helps, I won’t call them assholes. I suppose its the least I can do.
There are two ways to know when I’ve won a debate with someone, and they are just being irrational. When they resort to name calling or attempt to silence me (or tell me to shut up).
Censorship and political correctness are not the answer though. That said, I agree some civility is needed. At the end of the day, it is just a reflection of those who stoop to such levels.
Ironically a couple of the posters that have replied here have used such tactics against me in the past!
It is also a reflection of the poor state our education system is in. We are far behind the world in math, which in turn leaves us lacking in analytical thinking.
hello. i grew up with if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. my bird brain flies swirling around their tempests of singularity, and only the truth remains. it is so cold out i pray this global warming gets here soon. the Earth may not like those pests called humans, but God put me here to tend her; and i do the best i can. Earth cycles are far beyond human control, but you do not need to be tripping on any hallucinogen to see that being cleaner to the planet will make you feel better inside. abandoning the profitable ‘cap and trade’ agenda, for a greener solution: would stop much name calling. start with a smart grid.
I wonder how, he would respond to Hitler’s Brown shirts? Because, this is exactly the same tactic.
To shout down the opposition, to keep them from presenting their views, to make them appear weak and ineffectual so that they begin to feel that way themselves.
This is how facism is born, and we are witnessing this here right now in this country.
Verbal aggressionm, will lead to violent aggression and repression, we’re not that far away now.
Unless the left mobilizes and stands up to them, they will view it as a go ahead.
Yes!! this is exactly what I have been saying for so long now here on Truthdig. The vitriolic, nasty commenting is unnecessary and destructive to the real agenda of the Left, which is to mobilize!
Some sample Obama name-calling on Truthdig: “Obama is a feckless, unprincipled, opportunistic DLC stooge”, “people are just sick to death of Oblabla’s personal preening, mob-worthy secret deals”
Right on, Fred Branfman, the Left is as guilty as the right here, this is wrong and unproductive.
If ofersince72’s question below is for this Old Indian, who doesn’t even “believe” in “Gore and Hanson,” there’s plenty of ‘evidence’ our Mother earth is currently ‘running-a-temperature.’ “Civilization,” after all ‘presents’ here as a ‘disease’ CONdition.
That she might suddenly turn quite ‘frigid’ to the rapacious ‘advances’ of the retro-viral ‘agents’ of “global” climate “CHANGE!”, is definitely in-the-cards, though.
Fred Branfman seems to hope the things he decries here are no worse than a bout of perhaps particularly nasty socio-political ‘weather.’ The overwhelming weight of evidence, however, suggests they are actually the ‘climactic’ CONsequences of ten thousand years of the-rule-of-fear that has produced nearly seven billion Human inmates of what is daily taking-on all the characteristics of a “global” feedlot/prison.
What’s more, with that rule-of-fear having metastasized again into yet another outhright reign-of-terror, as it has been periodically made (by its owner/operators) to do, is it any wonder that angry, terrified (and institutionally terror-ized) “individuals” are lashing-out even at those who mean in good-faith to inform, rather than further frighten them? Still, his urging fellow-‘n’-gal “progressives” to try to be sources of calm in the midst of this growing shit-storm is certainly worthy of their consideration.
Meantime, this Old Indian suggests that our tame Sisters and Brothers best get-used-to-it, because like “global” warming it’s been a long time coming, and ain’t likely to be over real soon.
Also are you one of the ones that also believe
it is possible to control the temp and have a treaty
that does this… if so how?
I don’t believe there will be any melting ice
in less than 20 yrs… Why do you think there will
be?
Do you believe the C02 ppm can be brought down?
if so how? I don’t believe if we were to shut
every thing down at this moment we could. What makes
you think we can.??
What Will Tighter Restrictions on Trade in Iran Do?
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By Bucky5, February 7, 2010 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
Liecatcher ... I’d like to bite, but I’m confused, LOL. First a partial answer, then to my confusion:
The agenda mentioned was a reference to the election that put Obama in the Oval Office and gave Democrats a congressional majority. Personally, I view the shift to a Democratic majority as a rejection by We the People of Bush’s agenda and the ideologies of the Republican party. Speaking only for myself, I see this power shift as a mandate from “We the People” which, in turn, can be construed as the broad outlines of a new national agenda based on issues debated throughout the campaign season, regardless of specific candidate or office.
This agenda called for a substantial reversal of the previous administration’s goals and actions, including: national, single-payer health care, less or no involvement with conflicts in “Piraqastan” as Dubya might have called it, no more off-budget, pre-emptive wars, eliminating the more egregious parts of the Patriot Act, a reversal of trickle-down economics and tax policies, reversing the absolute power of a Unitary Executive, recomitting to the Geneva Convention, closing Gitmo and other “dark sites,” etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Does that answer the agenda question?
Now, my confusion. You said you were adding a paragraph “which I wrote in response to a health care article to give you more context for your response if you desire to respond. I believe CHRIS HEDGES’ COLUMN “Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction.”
The paragraph you added for context discussed the numbing and dumbing down of America, MIPIC and how easily sheeple are guided.
Whew! I could rant on THAT topic until our eyes bleed. But I’m missing the relevance of how your paragraph provides more context in which to frame my response. Please elaborate a bit more on how your response to the health care article relates to my original post and I’ll take a shot at providing a reply.
Incidentally, I’m not familiar with Chris Hedges’ “Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction” column. But if you like the title, I suggest reading an insightful work called “Democracy in America,” by de Tocquville, a French essayist and social commentator published circa 1835. (1835, not 1935, is correct. The man was way ahead of his time. Brilliant read.)
Look forward to hearing from you so we can bandy this about some more.
Report thisBy liecatcher, February 7, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
Rotten Minds, Shriveled Hearts and Human Souls
Posted on Feb 1, 2010 By Fred Branfman
TO: Bucky5, February 7 at 2:58 pm
“However, it is time to take the gloves off, step
around the obstructionists
and move forward with the agenda set forth by We the
People.”
Hey Bucky5:
My first thought was to simply ask you what that
agenda is & who
is going to lobby it for We the People. However, I
decided to add
the following paragraph which I wrote in response to
a health care
article to give you more context for your response if
you
desire to respond. I believe CHRIS HEDGES’ COLUMN
“Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction”
Report thisThe numbing & dumbing down of America leading to its
enslavement is not an accident or coincidence, but
rather the result of careful planning & execution by
generations of illuminati
whose goal is to enslave the world. These elitists
control the media, have unlimited resources & think
tank propaganda experts who brainwash the masses
while pretending to offer unbiased information.
MIPIC,e.g., MEDICAL INSURANCE PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIAL CONSPIRACY, has convinced the populace
that its products & services are needed to :
breathe, eat, sleep, defecate, pass gas, prevent
flatus, lower cholesterol, lose weight, overcome
anxiety, etc.,etc. And, once hooked on their powders,
pills, potions, vaccines & other concoctions, MIPIC
owns them from cradle to grave & they become easily
“guided” sheeple.
By Bucky5, February 7, 2010 at 10:58 am Link to this comment
Mr. Freeze, Gordy, Jimmy, Night-Gaunt, et al—
The words “civil” and “civic” derive from the same Latin root and have closely overlapping meanings. However, it appears the point under discussion is civil discourse in civic matters. Thus, precision and specificty are important.
The conservative right wants to engage in civic action without benefit of civil discourse. More moderate and/or liberal progressives want to use civil discourse as a catalyst for effecting civic change. From the get-go, neither side seems able to grasp the other’s intent, motivation, nor the means by which they hope to achieve their ends.
To wit, the battle over abolition between North and South is called the Civil War. (Now there’s an oxymoron!) Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it the Civic War? Likewise, the Revolutionary War. The Brits lost because they fought in a civil manner.
Okay. So I’m pushing it to make a point—that words have a profound effect on perception which, in turn, impacts the tactics a group uses to achieve its goals.
The Democrats/liberals are hung up on civility. I applaud the moral stance. However, throughout the Bush administration, and now with (essentially) full control of all legislative branches of our government, the application of civil tactics to civic matters has proven ineffective.
Obama’s futile, ongoing insistance on bipartisan support is now interpreted as nothing short of weakness by both sides. Pelosi’s unbending devotion to civility, e.g., “impeachment is off the table,” resulted in a complete abbrogation of her civic duty to protect and defend the Constitution.
Civil behavior regarding civic matters can be effective only when one stops confusing civility with etiquette. The intersection of civics and civility need not exlude disagreement and vigorous debate. If, as is currently the case, one side refuses to engage in informed debate, direct confrontation and challenge expressed in a civil manner should be expected and encouraged.
Perhaps Mr. Freeze crossed a line in calling for a foot on the throat of those with whom we disagree. However, it is time to take the gloves off, step around the obstructionists and move forward with the agenda set forth by We the People.
Report thisBy Jimmy1920, February 5, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
MrFreeze is my bad cop (see my earlier comment).
I don’t think that’s an effective long term strategy, nor a role model for behavior.
But when the violent encounter no resistance, they are sometimes encouraged in their behavior.
It is not just a matter of challenging values that are morally bankrupt, venal and preternaturally destructive; it is also a matter of challenging those who would surrender to values that are morally bankrupt, venal and preternaturally destructive.
Meanwhile, we need the likes of Mr. Branfman and most of those commenting on this to keep us focused on the high road,
Report thisBy Gordy, February 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment
Oh my god, I give up. Apparently everyone just wants
to shout for their team and to hell with everyone else.
And some of you seem to belong to a team of one.
Mr Freeze - I cannot believe you just said that without
Report thisirony; consider my mind boggled. Appalling.
By Night-Gaunt, February 5, 2010 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
Mrfreeze what then would differentiate us from them? We need to heed Nietzsche‘s warning about turning into our enemies if we adopt their tactics and fight them in a way that is like them. See the dilemma?
Report thisBy mrfreeze, February 5, 2010 at 12:21 am Link to this comment
I’m afraid that as high-minded and intellectually correct as Mr. Branfman is in this post, to attempt any reconciliation with the political Right in the U.S. is to surrender to a set of values that is morally bankrupt, venal and preternaturally destructive.
It is not in one’s best interest to show weakness or give quarter to those who lean to the Right. Period, end of story. If Mr. Branfman is disturbed by all the name calling and “coarse language” he should remind himself that these folks are THE ENEMY and deserve to be treated as such. It is dangerous to show them mercy. I say stomp on their collective neck. They’d do the same to you in a heart beat.
Report thisBy gerard, February 4, 2010 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment
A long time ago when this line first got started I commented on what I called “foul language” and somebdy promptly called me on it. For which thanks,
Report thisSince that post, many people have commented, and the overwhelming concensus is that denigration, insult, invective, whatever you call it whether four-letter words or otherwise, shows a kind of mean-spirited personal attack that lowers the quality of comments.
I’m grateful for this long discussion and glad to see so many thoughtful comments about fairness and civility and dignity.
I still think that the reason commentators use “street language” is not only to cause injury but to set a nasty emotional tone which they hope will revolt people who want to discuss something thoughtfully. I think they hope to discourage intelligent give-and-take communication in general.
They hope by doing this to support a generalized anti-intellectualism that is all too common in this country. It is great to see that they have not made any points here.
By gerard, February 4, 2010 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment
To felicity:
Report thisYes, money has something to do with it, I think—but it seems to me that “fashion” is involved too—the desire to appear “cool” and “in” and “tough” and “with it” “street-smart” etc. etc. Another element that fortifies the urge to hurt is American’s historical insistance on reward for competition in preference to participation; me-first, “don’t tread on me!”(threatening) plus influence of gangster culture, macho masculine supremacy.
Then there’s our cultural adoration of brute strength over “snobbish intellectualism”—the “workin’ stiff” as superior to the “suit.” Aggressive preferable to passive or conciliatory. It’s everywhere in our daily lives and the more you look the more you see.Our pioneer history also plays a big role, unconsciously of course.
Why bother with all this “superspection”? The first step toward joining the human race might be to recognize the many convoluted roots of language. Take “levels of speech”, for instance, where some languages have deeply incorporated differences in the way different people speak to different people, up, down, sidewise, to solidify class, rank etc.
I may be wrong, but I think democracy particularly and deliberately dropped deferentials in order to commonalize the language, more one level for all.
Dirty” language is apparently an attempt to degrade opponents and make them feel inferior. Language is altogether fascinating—a jungle, a universe, a dangerous treasury of almost divine powers.
By felicity, February 4, 2010 at 11:28 am Link to this comment
I happen (from sheer we-fell-into-it-years-ago-luck) to live in a very upscale, wealthy area of Southern California. Rude, entitled, self-centered actually do my neighbors justice.
Last week I suggested to the people living in front of me that we clean up our outside area because it looked like a pig sty and the neighbors shouldn’t have to look at a pig sty. Their comment? “Fuck the neighbors.”
Years ago, we told a neighbor that loud raucous outdoor parties at 3 am needed to stop so we could all get some sleep. His reply? “If you don’t like it, move.”
The question we ask each other is, is this what too much money does to people and if so, why.
Report thisBy samantha68, February 4, 2010 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
It is Time
As never before, it is time for all humanity to raise its’ collective voice in unison to say, it is time to come together and let compassion and tolerance take the lead in our future.
Our planet is dying because of the greed of a few for more and more money and power. The good old USA is failing to uphold the standards that were set so many years go. No longer does the good for all seem to matter.
Granted there are so many problems worldwide and the the standards of living all over the world are so unbalanced and tragic that all our tears would drown humanity out.
With the money that is floating around taking care of many insignificant things instead of being used to solve the problems, we should all be ashamed, ashamed of our leaders who apparently have finally hit the end of the road and don’t have the slightest idea of what the heck to do. We have never seen so much corruption, incompetence, stuborrness and down right negligence of duty that it is possible it many never be turned around.
For those who believe there is a higher power, no matter what the name is, and for those who do not believe in a higher power, collectively do believe that this could be a much better world. For those that volunteer their services year after year with nearly no help from the sources of the high and mighty and the obscenely rich, still keep going because they know that even one child, or one family, or one species all have a right o food and water and shelter. It really does not take much but so much is needed that many people don’t even know where to begin. It is time for judgmental and the intolerant to sit back and stop thinking abut themselves and take the first steps but unfortunately they won’t and that is so sad.
The exorbitant retirement pays and bonuses etc. could probably be cut in half and the other half donated to whatever cause they care about most (if they care at all) and this sharing of wealth could bring so much more to the world. Kudos to those that do.
Yes, we are a capitalistic society and it worked for a long time but it is not working well in the way that it should. Just a few small changes that could be made are not being made and I am afraid that the worse is yet to come.
Democracy is a wonderful concept in itself, yet all nations do not and will not wish to follow the example of the USA entirely. The world seems to have turned on the Americans and it is no ones fault but our own. We ourselves no longer have a democracy such as was set up by our forefathers and the past administration did its best to destroy it one law at a time. To state that the “Constitution is nothing but a God damned piece of paper” just showed that we had an administration that listened to no one but its arrogant and inept self. Our democracy is meant to grow with a little tweaking here and there but it can never keep growing with those that in power keep stopping it from that growth.
The citizens of the United States spoke in November but some with deaf ears can’t seem to hear what was said. We now have a new congress and they apparently had good intentions but will they follow through with them? Probably not most of them. They are to busy fighting with each other.
The citizens of the United States, perhaps not all, want accountability of past and present. They must be made accountable for the damage they have incurred not only to their own country but to the world at large.
So, it is time.
Report thisThanks for listening.
By Samson, February 4, 2010 at 6:11 am Link to this comment
Yes, we should never listen to fools like Thomas Jefferson. Where on earth would we be as a country if we listened to people like that?
““God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
Report thisThe people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.” -by Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover’s Jefferson On Democracy, ed., 1939”
By Gordy, February 4, 2010 at 3:02 am Link to this comment
Lunaclara, I agree that anonymity is what bring out
into the open what is normally hidden.
However, I am trying to offer an additional point for
discussion here, and no one’s picked up on it so I
try once more:
Isn’t it possible that the issue here is not one of
manners, decorum, conventional civility but rather
one of people who strongly identify with a position?
When this topic is raised suddenly everyone’s a model
of respectfulness because they want to look like one
of the good guys; every other page if full of slander
and bile. I don’t think that merely reminding
everyone to be nice polite girls and boys will have
any lasting effect. I have certainly tried in the
past and it achieved nothing. If anything, people
enjoy mocking a schoolmarm and delight in being worse
than ever behind her back as there is now an added
transgressive thrill.
In my view the real problem (which is where we should
look for a real solution) is that PEOPLE DON’T REALLY
LISTEN. They do not have a sensitive, receptive
state of mind. They cannot read what someone else
has said without mentally crowding it out with
refutations and counter-attacks. People don’t simply
listen - they listen-to-refute or listen-to-agree
depending on their preconceptions about the speaker
or the issue at hand. The speaker never has a chance
to actually be heard so no real discussion can take
place and everyone becomes more intractable and
isolated than before.
MANNERS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. Belief is the issue.
Report thisFaith in ‘facts’ and principles is irrational. The
world is dynamic and beyond human ken; we are all
trying to tack our sails to the wind and muddle along
as best we can. It is like a narcotic high to try to
pretend that “I am on the side of the Good Guys who
believe X about immigration and Y about law and
order” but it’s just hubris, and hubris long predates
the Internet.
By samantha68, February 4, 2010 at 1:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
IT IS TIME
As never before, it is time for all humanity to raise it’s collective voice in unison to say, we have had enough. Enough of all the nastiness, corruption, name calling, silly lawsuits, to raise our voices to say it is time to come together and let compassion and tolerance take the lead in our future.
Our planet is dying because of the greed of a few for more and more money and power. The good ole USA is failing to uphold the standards that were set so many years ago. No longer does for the good of all seem to matter.
Granted, there are so many problems worldwide and it does not seem the nations of the world are taking them head on. The standards of living all over the world are so unbalanced and tragic that all our tears would drown humanity out.
With the money that is floating around taking care of many insignificant things instead of some of it being used to solve these problems, we should all be ashamed. Ashamed of our leaders who can’t seem to get together as one body but don’t seem to have the courage to do something. There seems to be so much more corruption, incompetence, stubborness and down right negligence of duty that it is possible it may never be turned around.
For those who believe there is a high power, no matter what the name is, and for those who do not believe in a higher power, collectively do believe that this could be a much better world. For those that volunteer their services year after year with nearly no help from the sources of the high and mighty and the obscenely rich, still keep going becuse they know that even one child, or one family or one species, all have a right to food and water and shelter. It really does not take much but so much is needed that many do not know where to begin. It is time for the judgemental and intolerant to sit back and stop thinking about themselves and take those first steps but unfortunately probably won’t. Kudos to all those that do.
The exorbitant retirement pays and bonuses, etc. could probably be cut in half and the rest donated to whatever cause they care about most (if they care at all) and this sharing of wealth could bring so much more to the world.
Yes, we are a capitolistic society and it has worked for quite some time but it does not seem to be working any longer in the way that it should. Just a few small changes that could be made are not being made and I fear the worst is yet to come.
Democracy is a wonderful concept in itself, yet all nations do not and will not wish to follow the example of the USA entirely. The world has turned on the Americans and it is no ones fault but our own. We ourselves have a democracy such as was set up by our forefathers and it seems a past administration seemed to have done its best to make sure it was being destroyed one law at a time. The statement that the Constitution was nothing but a “God damned piece of paper” just showed an administration that listened to none but some pompous arrogant inept selves. The above thoughts are not mine alone but those of many others also.
Our democracy is meant to grow with some tweaking here and there but will not with some in power want to stop it.
The citizens of the United States spoke in Nov. We now have a new Congress and a man as President with some good intentions but will any of them be followed through.
Accountability of those now in office and those who are not would probably benefit our country.
Mose importantly those who did so much damage to our country and the world at large should still be accountable.
Should this happen perhaps we will stop sliding down the slippery slope to becoming a third world nation.
So, It Is Time.
Report thisBy Lunaclara, February 3, 2010 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment
I think that a very large number of folks who post vitriol on internet sites do it because it is often anonymous. In my experience, attempts to bring greater civility are generally ignored or ridiculed.
Of course, folks spew this stuff in the real world, too. It just seems to be less pervasive, and people seem more likely to be ashamed of behaving that way.
Report thisBy Jimmy1920, February 3, 2010 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment
I am a firm believer in the good cop, bad cop approach. Fred is the good cop. Keith Olbermann is a bad cop. Rachel Madow manages to be both.
Fred’s strategy is legitimate and necessary, but it cannot be sufficient.
People who deny facts and evidence, are not going to be swayed by facts and evidence. They will only be swayed by their own experience.
The challenge is to connect their experience with broader issues.
But also to remind them of the line by Maggie Thatcher, (not one of my heroes, normally) that when you attack me personally, it can only mean that you have no available arguments against my policies. (I suspect she said it a bit more succinctly.)
Or Will Rogers: “It ain’t what you don’t know that will hurt you; it’s what you know that ain’t so.”
Politicians need to be guided by an understanding that changing one’s experience can change one’s viewpoint. That was the logic of Civil Rights legislation. There were those who argued that governments can not legislate behavior. We learned that they can, even if not as quickly as we might like.
Paid pundits like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck are legitimate targets for personal attacks in my view. Yet there are comments on this page that are not far removed from the same warped world perception. I’m unlikely to waste my psychic energy on them.
I’m searching for an appropriate epithet for Bill O’Reilly. The best I can do is the Jack Torrance (The Shining) of Fox News. But I won’t hesitate to call Glenn Beck a chipmunk in jack boots.
But the best strategy of all is humor. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert put everything into perspective.
Report thisBy Night-Gaunt, February 3, 2010 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
I agree and attempt to maintain that decorum. Only rarely do I succumb such as when another fool posts the idea that a new revolution, like the failed French one is a good idea for this country. That is over the line.
Report thisBy idea1013, February 3, 2010 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
Fred,
Thank you for making these astute points. One section in particular really made me sit up and take notice because I was just saying something similar yesterday. “I most hurt myself, not others, when I dehumanize my opponents. The enjoyable rush of self-righteous anger is followed by an irritable letdown, producing the need for another anger rush.” I’ve been studying this phenomena in the YouTube community, where people are more likely to tell you to ‘go kill yourself’ than engage in discourse if you disagree with them. Responding in kind is reactionary and does nothing to further the conversation (though admittedly it does feel good in the moment).
We all need to work on bringing civility back into the public forum. The anonymity of the internet combined with the vitriolic language radio and t.v. commentators employ seems to have given us permission (in our own minds) to treat one another in a sub-human manner over the smallest difference. While most of us, whether we participate in this behavior or not, do recognize on some level that this low form of communication goes against the basic etiquette we learn in childhood, we have rationalized it by turning those who disagree with us into the enemy that must be defeated- in this case defeat comes by the pen rather than the sword.
Again, thank you for verbalizing a concern so many have today. I hope this article is encountered by many because sadly, many need to be reminded to mind their manners.
Report thisBy Gordy, February 3, 2010 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
I generally don’t see much communication going on in
forums like this one - people prefer to reinforce their
beliefs by creating a boldly-defined enemy to whom one
attributes everything that is opposite to what one
stands for.
The problem is their strongly-held beliefs and the
Report thisexistential sense of meaning and solidity that they
confer. The problem is NOT one of mere manners.
Polite, classy people will vilify and exterminate in
polite, classy ways if they have to.
By goldnsilver, February 2, 2010 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I think it’s good that you addressed name calling. I think that dehumanising our opponents is one of the easiest and most dangerous things to.
As an outsider, I watch Americans dig the trenchlines between Dem and Rep and both sides are as bad as each other (every country has some form of this, for instance Australia has labor vs liberal, working class vs upper class. But I have to say that Americans have made a national pass-time out of political affliation).
However, behaving passive aggressively isn’t much of a step up (as your did with the “I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of what can happen to societies when people so dehumanize and objectify each other. If climatologists are ‘leeches’ and ‘criminals,’ why allow them to practice this profession?), although it might make the point a bit more eloquently then %&$%$%&J@ would.
Report thisBy screamingpalm, February 2, 2010 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
My last post should have read ‘Liberals’ instead of ‘Progressives’ as most progressives don’t support the current health care plan (myself included).
That article does show the slippery slope some of you are asking for when it comes to political correctness. Beware what you wish for!
Report thisBy screamingpalm, February 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment
Progressives get an unlikely champion in Palin! Although I don’t agree with her, of course. There are much better reasons for Rahm Emanuel to lose his job than this. According to Branfman, however, we need to help Palin tar and feather him: “These differing responses strengthened my conviction that those of us who object to intellectual violence need to stand up to it.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl1101
Pick your poison, venom from Republicans or the attempts to silence opposition from Democrats.
Truthdig should not get a pass here either. Most of these articles are left to insightful posters such as No Man’s Land and Samson to actually “Dig Beneath the Headlines”.
Report thisBy Jim R, February 2, 2010 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment
Even given my tendency to maintain a certain level of civility in my political discourse with those on the right, I still respectfully reject any comparison between the vitriol or factual basis on the right and left.
Saying the extremes of the right and left are equally guilty of mendacious comments and attack, like the MSM is wont to do, doesn’t make it so.
Malicious attack has long been a feature of the right, due in large part to the fact that their policies are so wrong for so many.
Ascribing the same MO to those on the left that have been as correct as they have been ignored for so long, when their long suffering finally gives way to expressions of outrage normally below them, does not a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck make.
Just sayin.
Report thisBy Samson, February 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
In reading the comments below, I often think that the two-dimensional political spectrum that tries to put everything from ‘left’ to ‘right’ is misleading.
What we have in America is corporate power that controls the government. As Dubya so well stated, you are either with them or agin them.
To the supporters of corporate power on the right, they try to portray all opposition as ‘leftist’. Or usually as socialist or communist.
This is just playing a very simple “Us vs Them” card. Those who think of themselves as on the right or as conservative automatically think of the left as the enemy. They’ve been trained to think this way. Thus, when the corporate propaganda paints any efforts to constrain global warming (that might hurt corporate short term profits) as a ‘leftist’ agenda, all they are really doing is telling their right-leaning audience that they should hate this agenda. Its a way of building opposition without actually making the audience think.
You see the same the other direction of course as well. Notice all the Democrats try to blame the Republicans for everything. The Democrats know that many people are upset at them for continuing the wars, giving our billions to wall street, and for backing corporate profits over people’s health care. So, most of the Democrat propaganda focuses on the Republicans in the Senate as the bad guys, with the distraction of a fake debate over the 200+ year old filibuster added on top. The whole idea is to get their supporters vaguely mad at the bad guys on the right.
Over time, they get unthinking people on the right trained to think automatically that ‘left is bad’, while the unthinking people on the left are trained to think automatically that ‘right is bad’. Once this is established, they can create a quick (but unthinking) opposition to any policy simply by calling it a ‘left’ policy or a ‘right’ policy depending on the target unthinking audience.
Report thisBy Samson, February 2, 2010 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
I have the following quote near the top of the page on my blog (commondebate.blogspot.com)
““In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
—Justice Louis Brandeis”
Government, politicians, corporate media, they’ve all done a very good job of teaching this behavior. Its not that it was never around before. But it wasn’t socially acceptable. Not when politics was face to face in a small town. Now, these powerful forces in our society all act in exactly this manner, thus making everyone else believe that this is the way they should act as well.
And, I likewise cringe when I see this same behavior from ‘the left’. I always believe that its best to try to argue thoughts and ideas and not just to call someone names like ‘wing-nut’.
Most frightening is that the ‘dehumanizing’ of a people is a prelude to violence. Its hard to kill or harm another person if you think of them as another person just like you with the same loves and fears and desires. But, if you can start to just think of them as a ‘rag-head’, then its much easier to pull the trigger.
At times I tend to think of the US as being in a similar state to 1930’s Spain before the coup. This lack of any tolerance or ability to talk to others is not a good thing for a nation.
Report thisBy Vic Anderson, February 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Commune with those who will; otherwise, forget the ass souls.
Report thisBy ofersince72, February 2, 2010 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
According to what Obama just said on youtube…
we are over there in the Muslim world, killing
muslims to protect muslims from killing muslims
plus the same old bush line…
Why would I even have the silly notion that
Report thisit is about RESOURCES?
By Hammond Eggs, February 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
Progressives and liberals need to embody the compassion and empathy they claim to seek for society as a whole if they are to prevail.
This can also be translated as: “Stop dumping on Obama”. It’s gotten to the point that I can’t tell if Mr. Branfman is serious or if this essay is another shot in the Democrats’ propaganda campaign to keep progressives voting for their party.
Report thisBy ofersince72, February 2, 2010 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment
I just watched the youtube question and answer
with our pres that they sprayed accross my home
google page.
What a softball bunch of questions,,,that they
say weren’t screened.
The health care question was asked in a manner that
the Obama could put the problem with Capitol Hill.
Nothing about the text of the bill.
on the one war question, it thought george bush
Report thiswas answering it.
I AM SO TRYING TO REMAIN CIVIL !!!!!
By ofersince72, February 2, 2010 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
I am pissed off at every fucking act inside
Report thisthe damn beltway !!!!!!
By Night-Gaunt, February 2, 2010 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment
gerard there is no such thing as “foul language” just words that describe things. They have their places but you will always find those who rely on them over all else. The “foul language” goes back to the conquest of Briton in 1066 by the Normans who made the local language to be obscene. So you can say feces but not shit, coitus but not fuck etc. even though they mean the same thing. Do you understand? Most I speak about this don’t. Their minds are locked into the particular kind of conditioning they have experienced for they life spans.
Fred Branfman is correct and we need to stop deprecating our foes but instead engage them with reason, logic & of course the facts. But if they are truly irrational then nothing like that will persuade them. For the die hard Nazi, such things as rationality is laughed at. They are ruled by their ideology/theology and nothing can move them away from it. But do not play their game their way. Disarm them, charm them but do not become thugs like them. Don’t taunt and above all do not show weakness because they are predatory, just like bullies and will go after you if they think they can.*
Be diplomatic, but not meek and weak. Once can show strength without killing or maiming. But most of all you must know who you are and do not veer from it.
*Nietzsche warned against becoming the monsters with whom you fight. The enemy with whom you engage, if you adopt their tactics and outcomes then what differs you from them?
Report thisBy FRTothus, February 2, 2010 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment
Apart from the contest between who is right and who is wrong and who emerges as the winner, we all lose when the proposed solutions devolve into austerity measures imposed upon the populace, as those proposed by those who control the message are but must avoid being revealed. Thus, we miss the forest for the trees. Those who created the conditions are not held accountable. It is always the people, the victims, who must pay to clean it up, never those of power and privilege, never the perpetrators. That’s what is so outrageous to me, the never-ending shifting of the burden of the consequences away from the Corporate mafia Dons to John Q. Public, while Uncle Sam turns the other way and rewards the Dons. Witness the most recent budget for USA, Inc., where there is no check on the war profiteers, but domestic spending (it’s OUR money we’re talking about here) is frozen. Is this not an act of class warfare?
“[The ruling elites] know who their enemies are, and their enemies are the people, the people at home and the people abroad. Their enemies are anybody who wants more social justice, anybody who wants to use the surplus value of society for social needs rather than for individual class greed, that’s their enemy.”
(Michael Parenti)
“Corporate America is intent on eliminating taxes on all capital incomes. Nor do they care if record budget deficits are the result. Many of their more right-wing friends, including those in Congress, actually want larger deficits. They see chronic, record deficits as producing the budget crisis necessary to use as an excuse to privatize Social Security and dismantle what remains of the Roosevelt New Deal programs of the 1930s.”
(Jack Rasmus)
“America’s punitive and reactive response to crime is an integral part of the new social Darwinism, the criminal justice counterpart of an increasingly harsh attack on living standards and social supports, especially for the poor ... America [is] a society in which a permanent state of social disintegration is held in check only by the creation of a swollen apparatus of confinement and control that has no counterpart in our own history or in any other industrial democracy.”
(Elliott Currie)
“Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal ‘executive branch’ of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens.”
Report this(Chalmers Johnson)
By NYCartist, February 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
I,too object to using psychological disability terms for opponents, such as “wingnuts” “crazies” “loonies” or other ableist language. I think it’s OK to argue with an opponent and to be nasty, but politely. Am an older woman. Doing a countdown to 7 0 at last day of this month—no leap year day, sigh.
To gerard, it’s OK to make a mistake and double click. I do it,too.
I read all the comments and was amused that one name I recall has mixed up plain old criticism with using foul language.
Using the language I dislike, mentioned in first sentence, is old old in US politics. Saw it in a book, “We Are Lincoln’s Men” by Prof. David Herbert Donald, 2003, writing about how the language in a Lincoln campaign. Same old insults! on the mental state of the opponent.
Report thisBy liecatcher, February 2, 2010 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
Rotten Minds, Shriveled Hearts and Human Souls
Posted on Feb 1, 2010 By Fred Branfman
Ad hominem works & Rush gets 30 $million/year to spew
Report thisit.
At the end of a painful & complicated undergraduate
statistics
course, the Prof said that the most important thing
to consider
when evaluating a study, is who paid for it & who
benefits
from its acceptance. IOW, follow the money trail. I
also
believe predatory birds of a feather flock together.
Once it
sinks into one’s psyche that Democracy in America is
fiction,
and it has been replaced by Fascism, then the
principle players
are viewed more realistically. During the campaign
Obama was
the great black hope for the masses. Those playing
the devil’s
advocate claimed he wasn’t black enough. Now with
over a
years worth of lies under his belt, Bush3 is looked
at differently
by the people who were fooled but now see the light,
& those
still in the dark are crossing his bridge of hope to
nowhere &
continue to pray & hope while his cabal continues to prey.
Government Sachs will be the biggest beneficiary of
CAP &
TRADE. Al Gore, the Clintons, the Bush Crime Family &
related
cabals pursue a primary goal of a NWO:OWG, & they can
prove
anything they want to, including an imminent climate
cataclysm.
They are currently starving over one billion people
around the
world each year. They control the food supply &
pushed thru
the ethanol hoax. They promote perpetual wars.
So FRED BRANFMAN, don’t be surprised that so many
desperate
people without jobs, homes, or futures want to kill
the messenger, especially when his opinion hasn’t
caught up with reality yet.
By felicity, February 2, 2010 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
We Americans like to think of ourselves and this great ‘experiment’ as not only great but unique in history when evidence would have it that we’re not.
Historically prosperous nations seem to inevitably drift into materialism and anti-intellectualism with almost predictable disastrous results. Combine that phenomenon with the stark observation that the mad rule of money and materialism as the measure of all things corrodes our very souls, and then add the fact that man made catastrophes (9/11) usually result in a state of domestic lawlessness as people go into survivor mode - and here we are.
Report thisBy no mans land, February 2, 2010 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
Nava
The reason the environment is considered a “leftist” agenda is surprisingly
simple. The two competing sects in american politics approach societal
problems from two often uncomplimentary worldviews.
The left approaches problems from a humanist perspective that is based
on impact to society and the individual and prefers to alter systems.
approahes and cultures accordingly. Hence the left’s strong affinity for
justice and change.
The right approaches all problems from the perspective that the “invisible
hand of the market” is the great regulator. They tend to demand universal
homage to that philosophy and therefore reject individuality in favor
conformity to the collective market effort.
With respect to the environment, the right believes that regulation will hurt
Report thisbusiness and therefore rejects even the science. They will not come on
board unless they can be convinced that the market wants it and there is
money to be made from it.
By Granny Geese, February 2, 2010 at 10:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Quantcast, a market analysis company engages all 220 million U.S. Internet users, providing detailed audience profiles for the advertising marketplace.
According to Quantcast, following a five month trend; Truthdig traffic is 94% US, 71% male, of whom 94% have no kids. 33% make $60k to $100k per year and 33% make more than $100k per year.
Of this group, 97% are white, 44% have some college and 35% graduated.
So, according to the stats, comments here are from a majority of white, US, men with no kids, who’s majority has more income than the national average, of whom less than half have some college while roughly one third actually graduated.
What does that tell us?
That the majority of comments are coming from white men with limited advanced education, ample money and too much time on their hands!
And what’s that got to do with climate change and name calling?
Not much other than people with limited education tend to be people with limited intellect. And people with ample income and too much time on their hands tend to be easily amused, or distracted, or worst of all influenced. And people who live to drown our government in a bathtub also live to drown us in a bathtub, since us, that would be we the people are the government. So they use the best tool around that holds appeal to those with limited intellect. Stringing offensive words together.
This works very well since those with limited intellect, ample income and too much time on their hands, can remember the string without having to understand what’s behind it. Don’t believe me? Next time you run into someone who wisely [sic] exclaims offensive expletives regarding a real issue, ask them to explain the real issue. Don’t be surprised if the majority cant.
Nuff said.
Report thisBy Hulk2008, February 2, 2010 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
Humankind will fade away one day because it was so busy screaming at each other. Global warming, over-fishing, pollution, indiscriminate use of WMDs, uncontrolled nuclear waste, deforestation, rampant greed, overspending on the military, raping of the environment from a myriad of venues, decimation of the Earth’s flora and fauna, and the rapid disappearance of potable water will eventually do us all in.
Report thisHumans have one hope: evolve into a new species that can live off the poisonous slag that remains after homo sapiens kills itself off. Here’s to the rise of Homo Pollutis !! (We can also hope evolution leaves behind the vocal chords like a vestigial vermiform appendix.)
By GW=MCHammered, February 2, 2010 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“Obama’s administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans’ Depression, caused by the Bush administration’s ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
Report thisBy bozhidar, February 2, 2010 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
People who shout USA, USA, USA, God Bless America, and believe in its greatness [prefection?]wld find any change from usual practice causing impairment to or diminishment of the same.
And when they look up in the sky or sniff the air, they natchurally see nothing unusual. tnx
Report thisBy nick, February 2, 2010 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
you would act the same if you had same parents, environment and genes, I would leave out the genes part, the point is that communities make us who were are, I kind of thought that was your point, it is about the type of fellowship we want to cultivate, the gene inclusion is pointless and takes away from the gist of your article
Report thisBy nava, February 2, 2010 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
why is global warming a leftist agenda ? The evidence for the climate crisis is so striking that it cannot be dismissed. Most objections in politics are not driven by principles but personal vendetta. This is a clear example of how politicians or media inspired by politics can eradicate the blight of the malignancies of our beautiful world. So it should be outside the gamut of dirty politics.
Report thisChina is making progress in developing green energy source and cutting down carbon emission apart from from levying renewable energy tax.. is that just a means to boost its own image in the international scene or is it a genuine effort to fight the climatic challenge. What ever be it I endorse it and I strongly support the need for a new human movement to avert the crisis for the betterment of humanity.
By SoTexGuy, February 2, 2010 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
I was told by my father when I was young “Life isn’t a shouting contest”.. to this day I regard that as one of the most insightful and valuable things he ever said to me.
On the other hand if life isn’t a shouting contest then American politics and society and more in these times certainly are! And it has been shown to us very clearly that when it comes to progressive social issues like climate change or health care or war (make a list) that the squeaky wheels get a lot of attention and grease.. That many of those noisy wheels are way out-of-round, even maybe cracked and way low on air.. doesn’t seem to matter.
So the question is; in this environment how does reason and clarity penetrate such a wall of noise and shouting?
Figure that out and let us know!
Thanks and have a good day.
Report thisBy C.Curtis.Dillon, February 2, 2010 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
When your opponent resorts to invectives and name calling, you have won ... period. It represents his failure to have any defense for your position. So, if one assumes this is true, the climate change scientists have won and deniers have lost. I mean, Inhofe went to Copenhagen and couldn’t find anyone to listen to him because he says nothing of substance.
As for ofer and his Gore and Hansen comment, it speaks for itself. Maybe you disagree with Gore’s politics and making money off climate change but how do you attack Hansen? He makes nothing from his work other than a salary and was in Bush’s dog house for 8 years because he refused to change his position. To me that is the essence of an ethical scientist ... refusing to buckle to political pressure. So ofer, I do believe Hansen completely. And Gore ... he is not important in either sense since he is not a scientist. I believe the science even if it is not 100%. Things are happening on this planet that pose a danger to large numbers of humans ... no matter if it is man-made or natural. If you are drowning or the river has run dry do you really care what the cause?
Report thisBy Big B, February 2, 2010 at 6:17 am Link to this comment
I hate to say it, but LBJ was right. The old analogy went something like this..
During one of LBJ’s campaigns, he told his chief of staff to go to the media and accuse his opponent of being a “dirty pig fucker”. The man told LBJ that his opponent was obviously not practicing in beastiality. LBJ told him, “I know that, I just want the son of a bitch to have to deny it!”
That’s how politics works in the US. You have to fire the first shot, and the last one. Because it is all that the mostly sheepish american public can understand.
Report thisBy ardee, February 2, 2010 at 4:25 am Link to this comment
There were once fistfights and challenges to duels on the floor of the Senate. I doubt that invective and passion are anything new at all.True that the internet makes available an opportunity for more such but it is still out there, whether public or private.
This nation is simply dying for real progressive leadership. In its absence we find an absurdity like the Tea Party movement gaining traction, Sarah Palin becoming creditable ( unbelievable) and folks so frustrated with a candidate who runs on one platform and governs on quite another that they sputter and rant.
The words of some Obama partisans match invective for invective, insult for insult those of Obama detractors. Hypocrisy much?
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, February 2, 2010 at 4:20 am Link to this comment
Ofer:
I think we are on the same side.
Let me see if I can translate Tao Walker:
Global Warming is real and it is obvious. If we don’t stop it’s going to get out of control and the equalibria of the Earth’s systems will be changed to one that does NOT allow the specie Homo Sapiens to survive. We will all die, and most of the animal and plant species will die, too.
This will be like the Yucatan Meteor that ended the Dinosaur Era 65 million years ago.
To make it really, really Simple:
Report thisIf you defecate in your drinking water, it will poison you.
By ofersince72, February 1, 2010 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment
it is so hard to stay civil when your leader tells
Report thisyou he is going to start down sizing nuclear
weapons, but continues to build them
By welshTerrier2, February 1, 2010 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment
I spend considerable energy writing comments in online newspapers. Everyday, I see an avalanche of exactly the type of ad hominem, abusive name calling cited in the article. Very little of it is directed at me.
I have reached the following conclusions in trying to persuade and enlighten people who conduct themselves in this manner:
1. write about areas of commonality (cutting the budget, restoring the people’s voice in government, addressing corruption and influence peddling)
2. be neither Democrat nor Republican in word nor deed
3. certain “hot” issues (abortion, gays in the military, even climate change) are not worth discussing with this group
4. focus on “cutting the budget” by showing how much waste there is in military spending (more than 760 foreign US military bases, more than 50% of discretionary spending, Obama’s military budget largest in history, it’s not a “defense” budget, it excludes hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending hidden in other budgets, it is bankrupting the US making the country weaker)
5. quote Eisenhower’s statement on the military-industrial complex and how it threatens our liberties (use the term “corporate welfare”)
6. talk about the corruption of our democracy by big money - In response to politicians are all bought and paid for, I point out it is big buck corporations who are buying them. In response to the recent Supreme Court decision, call for a cut-off of Federal contracts to any corporation that involves itself in “electioneering.” Take away the prize and you take away the incentive to campaign.
7. do not support candidates (every action yields an equal and opposite reaction) unless it’s a third party candidate
8. prove that both parties are responsible for the fiscal mess (refer to the “going nowhere” two party pendulum)
9. make a case that the country is in decline because military spending has made the US less competitive (high health care costs, poor education, lack of infrastructure investment, failure to invest in the American people)
10. talk about aggressive anti-trust enforcement to make markets truly competitive and less able to spend money controlling what happens in Washington.
If you find what you’re writing is outraging the outrageous, you need to change your approach. Persuasion requires you to keep your eye on the grape.
Report thisBy nikto, February 1, 2010 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Just meet up with the person who says he despises you, and serve him a creme brulee.
Report thisBy gerard, February 1, 2010 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment
How about this? Part of the use of foul language is done by people who don’t know any better. Part of it comes from people who intentionally want to lower the standards of the site to the point where intelligent people who want to be helpful will simply withdraw out of disgust. And still another part is a kind of macho exhibitionism—habit developed in other contexts which spills over into attempts arising out of life frustrations in an attempt to communicate personal pain politically.
Report thisBy ofersince72, February 1, 2010 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment
For all those reasons that NO_MANS_LAND
mentioned, I believe that the climate collapse
is most definitatly positive. It will give man
an idea of who really is in charge and what really
is important and neccessary .(for a while)
The planet intends on cleansing itself. Its rivers
Report thisits oceans, its SOILS, its atmosphere…..
By ofersince72, February 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment
No MAN IS THE MAN !!!!!!!!!!!!
Report thisBy ofersince72, February 1, 2010 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment
Inherit the wind…... I sure apologize for any
offense you may have taken…It was sure not directed
tobe personal… Only my forty year frustrations with
Democrats and the media….
What the ultimate outcome of a global climate change
Report thiswill be is only speculation by anyone..No physics
models can reproduce this.
I have my beliefs on it..that no buying and selling
of emissions is going to change anything but the
wallets of Wall Street. That this is a carbon recycle that has seemed to be going on since the
ice caps appeared two million years ago. That of
course we won’t be able to produce enough food for
the world’s present population. That the fifty year
time table that pundits want to give for preparation
is a hoax. That evaporation will be of much more
concern to man’s suvival than melting ice. We know
that the C02 ppm is much higher than at any time
of the present ice age. it is interesting to me..
I hope we prepare in the right manner, it doesn’t
seem likly though.
By Jim R, February 1, 2010 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bravo! That’s one of the reasons I read Truthdig daily.
Insightful analysis reasonably presented will somehow win out, the last thirty years of conservative triumphs notwithstanding.
It is daunting sometimes to respond on the web to an anonymous commenter whose spewing the usual nonsensical vitriol, with reason, facts, and some humor.
Even when I drop the exchange after a few salvos and let them get the last word I’m much more satisfied than they could ever be, by the factual presentation, class and tone of the comments when reviewing later - the comparison laid bare for the world to see.
Mediaite for one is a great example where the negative, mean spirited stuff is on full display, it typically runs 80/20 or thereabouts bad to good.
At least I try! Carry on, Truthdiggers!
Report thisBy no mans land, February 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment
Not sure it really matters at this point. ‘Citizens United’ will prove to be the greatest act of violence on the American people by its government in history. That decision codified into the law what can only be called “The Regressive Era.” The poverty it will create, poor working conditions, environmental abuses, rising crime, and debt servitude should all be taken as acts of violence. The courts will be stacked and justice will become uniformly sympathetic to business and political power unlike we have known in this lifetime. If it gets bad enough, we will begin seeing an increase in vigilante justice, as was common in the late 19th century.
We all need to understand one thing. We just handed our democracy to a collective of corporations that are competing in a global market with child and slave labor. In doing so, political parties will become less relevant over time. So does anyone really think that something like the minimum wage will survive this? If we’re lucky, that’s all we’ll lose.
Like the author, I too am worried about the rise in polarizing rhetoric, but I would argue that its a symptom of many, many more problems. Let’s run through all the warning signs of failing states. These warning signs are or have been present before nearly every state collapse such as the Balkans, various African nations, or the Soviet Union.
-A weak, impotent, or otherwise unresponsive central government: check
-Decreasing state assets / liquidation of the public domain: check
-A weak and decling economy: check
-Historic sectarian divides/disputes: not severely
-Decreased confidence in government institutions and leadership: check
-Loss of access to life-sustaining resources: not on a large scale
-The disappearance of issue advocacy and the emergence of a cult of ideology or personality that is unconstrained with prinicples and morality. (in other words, if people abandoned the issues they care about because their leader or tribe does, that consititutes a cult IMO. For example, prior to Citizens United, conservatives were “quite” concerned about government corruption. After the decision by the 5 conservative judges, they embraced it): check
-Gross imbalance in the omnipresent business-labor tension within a society: check
-Tightening government controls and a decrease of human rights / civil liberties: check
-A widening wage gap and rising poverty rate: check
-Fringe beliefs entering the mainstream: check
-Emergence of sectarian fissures: on the rise
-An underclass of people that becomes a focal point for angry of nativism (such as muslims or hsipanic migrants): check
-Poor education: check
-A culture that openly embraces violence: check
-Easy access to weapons: check
-Weak sense of community: check
-A ratcheting up and embrace of violent and dehumanizing rhetoric in the public domain: check
-The lack of a counter message in the public domain to the violent rhetoric: check
-Rising acts of violence from the fringes: check
-Rising nationalism/conservative backlashes that suggests social insecurity and a desire to reclaim a sense of “greatness”: check
-A collective lack of hope: check
-An emotional “Powder keg” event, such a high profile assassination: not yet
If it helps, I won’t call them assholes. I suppose its the least I can do.
Report thisBy gerard, February 1, 2010 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment
Ssorry my posts get up twice every once in a while. I’m moving a good deal faster than my computer, apparently. I’ll try to be careful about that.
Report thisBy screamingpalm, February 1, 2010 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
Grow some thicker skin for crying out loud!
There are two ways to know when I’ve won a debate with someone, and they are just being irrational. When they resort to name calling or attempt to silence me (or tell me to shut up).
Censorship and political correctness are not the answer though. That said, I agree some civility is needed. At the end of the day, it is just a reflection of those who stoop to such levels.
Ironically a couple of the posters that have replied here have used such tactics against me in the past!
It is also a reflection of the poor state our education system is in. We are far behind the world in math, which in turn leaves us lacking in analytical thinking.
Report thisBy rollzone, February 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment
hello. i grew up with if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. my bird brain flies swirling around their tempests of singularity, and only the truth remains. it is so cold out i pray this global warming gets here soon. the Earth may not like those pests called humans, but God put me here to tend her; and i do the best i can. Earth cycles are far beyond human control, but you do not need to be tripping on any hallucinogen to see that being cleaner to the planet will make you feel better inside. abandoning the profitable ‘cap and trade’ agenda, for a greener solution: would stop much name calling. start with a smart grid.
Report thisBy G.Anderson, February 1, 2010 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment
I wonder how, he would respond to Hitler’s Brown shirts? Because, this is exactly the same tactic.
To shout down the opposition, to keep them from presenting their views, to make them appear weak and ineffectual so that they begin to feel that way themselves.
This is how facism is born, and we are witnessing this here right now in this country.
Verbal aggressionm, will lead to violent aggression and repression, we’re not that far away now.
Unless the left mobilizes and stands up to them, they will view it as a go ahead.
Report thisBy Virginia777, February 1, 2010 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment
Yes!! this is exactly what I have been saying for so long now here on Truthdig. The vitriolic, nasty commenting is unnecessary and destructive to the real agenda of the Left, which is to mobilize!
Some sample Obama name-calling on Truthdig: “Obama is a feckless, unprincipled, opportunistic DLC stooge”, “people are just sick to death of Oblabla’s personal preening, mob-worthy secret deals”
Right on, Fred Branfman, the Left is as guilty as the right here, this is wrong and unproductive.
Report thisBy TAO Walker, February 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment
If ofersince72’s question below is for this Old Indian, who doesn’t even “believe” in “Gore and Hanson,” there’s plenty of ‘evidence’ our Mother earth is currently ‘running-a-temperature.’ “Civilization,” after all ‘presents’ here as a ‘disease’ CONdition.
That she might suddenly turn quite ‘frigid’ to the rapacious ‘advances’ of the retro-viral ‘agents’ of “global” climate “CHANGE!”, is definitely in-the-cards, though.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, February 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment
It’s not that simple. But never bring a knife or a olive branch to a gun-fight if you aren’t better armed. All you’ll end up with is lead poisoning.
If you CAN reach them, do so. If you can’t, prepare to man the barricades.
Guys like the first one will NEVER change because they have their manhood and masculinity tied up in their politics…“Real Men don’t vote Democratic!”
The world is full of them.
Report thisBy gerard, February 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment
People turn to foul language for many reasons, and it is probably better for this kind of rage and invective to be stated publicly than to be held in.
My objection to it is that it’s personal attack. In addition, it is repetitive, limited, very boring and goes nowhere.
If there is any value in these columns at all it is in exchanging ideas, and ideas require more than a fistful of four-letter words.
Report thisBy gerard, February 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment
People turn to foul language for many reasons, and it is probably better for this kind of rage and invective to be stated publicly than to be held in.
My objection to it is that it’s personal attack. In addition, it is repetitive, limited, very boring and goes nowhere.
If there is any value in these columns at all it is in exchanging ideas, and ideas require more than a fistful of four-letter words.
Report thisBy ofersince72, February 1, 2010 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment
Do you believe that Gore and Hanson have it right?
If so, why?
Report thisBy TAO Walker, February 1, 2010 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment
Fred Branfman seems to hope the things he decries here are no worse than a bout of perhaps particularly nasty socio-political ‘weather.’ The overwhelming weight of evidence, however, suggests they are actually the ‘climactic’ CONsequences of ten thousand years of the-rule-of-fear that has produced nearly seven billion Human inmates of what is daily taking-on all the characteristics of a “global” feedlot/prison.
What’s more, with that rule-of-fear having metastasized again into yet another outhright reign-of-terror, as it has been periodically made (by its owner/operators) to do, is it any wonder that angry, terrified (and institutionally terror-ized) “individuals” are lashing-out even at those who mean in good-faith to inform, rather than further frighten them? Still, his urging fellow-‘n’-gal “progressives” to try to be sources of calm in the midst of this growing shit-storm is certainly worthy of their consideration.
Meantime, this Old Indian suggests that our tame Sisters and Brothers best get-used-to-it, because like “global” warming it’s been a long time coming, and ain’t likely to be over real soon.
Hokahey!
Report thisBy ofersince72, February 1, 2010 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment
If you believe in climate change or collapse, as
I do, then this ought to be easy for you..
rising temperature + melting H20 = evaporation
evaporation = clouds
clouds = albedo.
Also are you one of the ones that also believe
it is possible to control the temp and have a treaty
that does this… if so how?
I don’t believe there will be any melting ice
in less than 20 yrs… Why do you think there will
be?
Do you believe the C02 ppm can be brought down?
Report thisif so how? I don’t believe if we were to shut
every thing down at this moment we could. What makes
you think we can.??