Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Investment Falters as Fossil Fuels Face ‘Perfect Storm’
Satellite Provides Sharper Picture of Shrinking Ice Sheet




Living on a Dollar a Day


Truthdig Bazaar
Risk, Ambiguity and Decision

Risk, Ambiguity and Decision

By Daniel Ellsberg
$101.79

more items

 
Report

This Is What Resistance Looks Like

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

Posted on Apr 4, 2011
AP / Reed Saxon

A woman who sympathizes with people whose homes have been foreclosed is arrested at a protest outside a Chase bank in Los Angeles.

By Chris Hedges

We will not halt the laying off of teachers and other public employees, the slashing of unemployment benefits, the closing of public libraries, the reduction of student loans, the foreclosures, the gutting of public education and early childhood programs or the dismantling of basic social services such as heating assistance for the elderly until we start to carry out sustained acts of civil disobedience against the financial institutions responsible for our debacle. The banks and Wall Street, which have erected the corporate state to serve their interests at our expense, caused the financial crisis. The bankers and their lobbyists crafted tax havens that account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade. They rewrote tax laws so the nation’s most profitable corporations, including Bank of America, could avoid paying any federal taxes. They engaged in massive fraud and deception that wiped out an estimated $40 trillion in global wealth. The banks are the ones that should be made to pay for the financial collapse. Not us. And for this reason at 11 a.m. April 15 I will join protesters in Union Square in New York City in front of the Bank of America.

“The political process no longer works,” Kevin Zeese, the director of Prosperity Agenda and one of the organizers of the April 15 event, told me. “The economy is controlled by a handful of economic elites. The necessities of most Americans are no longer being met. The only way to change this is to shift the power to a culture of resistance. This will be the first in a series of events we will organize to help give people control of their economic and political life.”

If you are among the one in six workers in this country who does not have a job, if you are among the some 6 million people who have lost their homes to repossessions, if you are among the many hundreds of thousands of people who went bankrupt last year because they could not pay their medical bills or if you have simply had enough of the current kleptocracy, join us in Union Square Park for the “Sounds of Resistance Concert,” which will feature political hip-hop/rock powerhouse Junkyard Empire with Broadcast Live and Sketch the Cataclysm. The organizers have set up a website, and there’s more information on their Facebook page.

We will picket the Union Square branch of Bank of America, one of the major financial institutions responsible for the theft of roughly $17 trillion in wages, savings and retirement benefits taken from ordinary citizens. We will build a miniature cardboard community that will include what we should have—good public libraries, free health clinics, banks that have been converted into credit unions, free and well-funded public schools and public universities, and shuttered recruiting centers (young men and women should not have to go to Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers or Marines to find a job with health care). We will call for an end to all foreclosures and bank repossessions, a breaking up of the huge banking monopolies, a fair system of taxation and a government that is accountable to the people.

The 10 major banks, which control 60 percent of the economy, determine how our legislative bills are written, how our courts rule, how we frame our public debates on the airwaves, who is elected to office and how we are governed. The phrase consent of the governed has been turned by our two major political parties into a cruel joke. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs. And the faster these banks and huge corporations are broken up and regulated, the sooner we will become free.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Bank of America is one of the worst. It did not pay any federal taxes last year or the year before. It is currently one of the most aggressive banks in seizing homes, at times using private security teams that carry out brutal home invasions to toss families into the street. The bank refuses to lend small business people and consumers the billions in government money it was handed. It has returned with a vengeance to the flagrant criminal activity and speculation that created the meltdown, behavior made possible because the government refuses to institute effective sanctions or control from regulators, legislators or the courts. Bank of America, like most of the banks that peddled garbage to small shareholders, routinely hid its massive losses through a creative accounting device it called “repurchase agreements.” It used these “repos” during the financial collapse to temporarily erase losses from the books by transferring toxic debt to dummy firms before public filings had to be made. It is called fraud. And Bank of America is very good at it.

US Uncut, which will be involved in the April 15 demonstration in New York, carried out 50 protests outside Bank of America branches and offices on Feb. 26. UK Uncut, a British version of the group, produced this video guide to launching a “bail-in” in your neighborhood.

Civil disobedience, such as that described in the bail-in video or the upcoming protest in Union Square, is the only tool we have left. A fourth of the country’s largest corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil and Bank of America—paid no federal income taxes in 2010. But at the same time these corporations operate as if they have a divine right to hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies. Bank of America was handed $45 billion—that is billion with a B—in federal bailout funds. Bank of America takes this money—money you and I paid in taxes—and hides it along with its profits in some 115 offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes. One assumes the bank’s legions of accountants are busy making sure the corporation will not pay federal taxes again this year. Imagine if you or I tried that.


New and Improved Comments

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

By Cliff Carson, May 20, 2011 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

I agree with you Ardee

X=X is nothing other than an obvious statement that whatever you choose for X to represent then that is what X is.

No mystery, just a fact stated as an algebraic statement.  I suspect more than 90% of every comment from a certain source has belabored the obvious

X=X or translated = Futility is sure nuff futility

Report this

By ardee, May 20, 2011 at 4:58 am Link to this comment

John Best, May 19 at 5:21 pm

A definition of futility is to continue to dialogue with an increasingly unbalanced Martha/Thomas
I (finally) noticed how off the points were my dialogues with several as worthless as she/he and have sworn to avoid further mistakes in future. Perhaps this straying from honest dialogue and blocking attempts to find common ground and solutions is exactly the purpose of these various posters?

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 20, 2011 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

Reading E’J’ Dionne’s Truthdig piece once again reminds me that for some reason almost no one will address the real problem with proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare , and Medicaid.

The real problem?
These three “Entitlements” are completely and totally paid for by Social Security and Medicare paycheck deductions from wage earners and the premiums paid for Medicare by the people who are on Medicare.  Therefore these three Programs have not contributed one single penny to the debt or deficit.  The fact is that forever they have been paying in more to the U S Treasury every year than the Treasury has been paying out for the three.

So since the Treasury all these years has collected an excess over payouts, that collected money has to have gone somewhere.  I just wonder where and how much.  I do know that the money “stolen” from the taxpayers amounts into the Trillions of Dollars, a sum large enough to take care of the three well past the year 2100.

When anyone publicly brings out this fact, and it is rare that they do, the politician’s reply is totally scripted to “Well future predictions show that by the year 2020 the reserve will be used up, and for the this past year for the first time, less was collected than was paid out.”  All true, but criminally “Spun” because the politician didn’t say what is planned to pay back the stolen money to these programs, nor why there is currently a shortfall.  These reasons are just ignored as if they didn’t exist.

Dionne did touch on the current shortfall, he mentioned the unemployed.  And in this Dionne is quite correct.  What is it that the unemployed don’t do?  They don’t pay employment taxes!  So if over 1 of every 5 wage earners are out of work , then the contributions to these “Entitlement” funds are reduced by that percent.  The glaringly obvious solution ?

GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK!  This is exactly what the Republican Budget plan WON’T DO!

Another reason for lost revenues?  The wage earners now get less pay in relation to the cost of living than they once did so now their tax input is less and the 1% get more of the pie and - well you know what the Republicans think about the rich paying taxes.

Now why would the Republicans want to keep the country in an economic crisis?  Could it be so they can get total control in 2012?

They performed BOHICA ( Bend over here it comes again) on America during the Bush run and brought this country to its knees economically except for the 1% , that group made out like the bandits they are, and the conservative rank and file went to church to hear the Right Wing Gospel ” that less is better and is the pathway to heaven, so worship the 1% so they will build you a golden city”.  Or as my 24/7 Right Wing “Christian” Radio station has stated in forums:  “Democrats won’t be able to get into heaven”.

Does everyone on here know what needs to happen in 2012?

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 19, 2011 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

OK - I had to look… my bad…

I really don’t think I need add anything at all…

===========================

From MarthaB, posted at:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/
will_symbols_trump_logic_20110519/

With regard to simple forms of the use of dialectic for simple minds, the Arabic Numbering System, 1 through 10, is a simple form of dialectic where 0 is the beginning and 10 is the end, together with all points in between and combinations thereof, for example; 0=0, 1=1, 2=1+1, 3=2+1, 4=2+2, 5=3+2, 6=3+3, 7=5+2,  8=4+4, 9=5+4, 10=10 and etc.
Also, the English Lettering System, A through Z, is used in the same way; in the Alphabet A is the beginning and Z is the end and B through Y are all points in between A and Z; examples are DOG=D+O+G, CAT=C+A+T, RUN DOG RUN = (R+U+N)+(D+O+G)+(R+U+N), and so on and so forth.

=================================

Apparently the really juicy stuff is on his computer though. A pity.

What a total waste of time…

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

For those on this thread claiming to not
understand the process of dialectic as explained in this post, as I
certain, Gary Mont, John Best, Night-Gaunt and their ilk will; such a
claim when made is tantamount to a claim of being retarded. 
My answer is at this site, my computer has what I say controlled in regard to complex dialectic:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/will_symbols_trump_logic_20110519/

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

To establish dialectic, a beginning is established, an end is established,
and all points in between are established.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

test 101

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

Well, in truth, if Martha(A/B) is in fact, just another Republican Shill, it makes the message; so oft repeated, far simpler to comprehend.

In fact, this may be why s/he offered Mein Kampf as a sample of sublated x=x unity of balance, mathmatica…

The message then, translates into something like this:

        ================================

As soon as all of the Majority Common Population joins the ranks of the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement, and becomes as adept at the use of propaganda, sophistry and dialectic as the current Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement has been for the last thirty years, the USA will become a full utopia for the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement of which MarthaA and B are members in good standing.

        ==============================

Either way, methinks this case is closed. smile

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

The parrot uses a trick I’ve seen used by the right-wingers quite frequently.  That is, accuse the other person of precisely the sins of which you yourself are guilty.  It diverts attention nicely but you do have to be completely without shame, or too stupid to know when you should indeed be ashamed. 

I could have written exactly your last post about you, instead of you about me, and I suppose we might both be right.  But I think not.  I’ll accept the judgment of others.

And I thank you for not addressing my lowliness.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 19, 2011 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

What good is a teacher who acts like a haute tin plated dictator who <i>demands</i. everyone understands instead of teaching them what is to be understood? That isn’t a teacher, I don’t know what it is but teach it is not.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 19, 2011 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Said the parrot to us.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

“I can’t help it that you are a poor teacher that repeats things like a
catechism without substance or explanation. You can’t. So you
remain opaque and we remain free of you. A nice equation, simple
and elegant.” —Night-Gaunt, May 19 at 4:02 pm

Said the fool to the teacher and wondered why he got an “F” for his
efforts.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 19 at 3:31 pm,

You pretend that you comprehended nothing at all of what I say;
you disingenuously speak for me and say what you find
convenient to answer in a conversation between you and yourself.

If you are going to play the fool and misrepresent what I say,
there is no point in continuing to talk to you directly, because it is
not possible to have rational conversation with a fool, and even
less possible if that fool chooses to misrepresent both sides of the
dialogue.

Separate yourself emotionally from what is being discussed
without using accusatory propaganda like a petulant child, and
apologize for your reprehensible behavior that you should be
ashamed of.

You have taken a shameful position, you are defending a
shameful
position and now you are trying to shift your shame off onto
me.

You are a shameful person without shame and I tire of
treating you as if you are more than you apparently are by trying
to dialogue with you, as if you are ingenuous in your intentions.

I will no longer respond directly to you as if you are worthy of
response, because what you have to say is not worthy of direct
response, only indirect critique as is the behavior of a fool.

“You people,” John Best, Gary Mont, Night-
Gaunt
and others of your ilk have a tactic of pretending
foolishness that requires others to make multiple explanations to
compensate for YOUR lack of ability and understanding and at the
end of the process, when you still pretend that you don’t
understand, you blame those of whom you have sought multiple
explanation from for repeating that which you were to dense to
comprehend the first time around.

This is a process of propaganda known as Transference that “you
people” have applied to your own foolishness. 

If this type of behavior makes you feel that your shameful
behavior is more than the foolishness that it is, that is your
affair, but to me it is nothing more than foolish twaddle on
your part.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

For The Marthas,

Dialectic as logic and sophistry as propaganda is at the base of all human dialogue, and this base of dialogue is what we must first learn and build upon, because best interest is not built upon sophistry and faulty logic, best interest is built upon the proof of x=x logic.

Uhuh. Well thanks for repeating the whole damned thing once again, exactly as predicted, without giving anything resembling an example. And no I did not ask for an example of dialectic used by the Nazis, unless of course you’re saying that Mein Kampf IS a perfect example of Hegelian Unity of Balance Mathmatica and x=x logic.

If this is not the case, then show us an example of the perfect Hegelian Logic, which you claim the Majority Common Population MUST learn to use to counteract the sophist propaganda of the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement.

Post an example, using words and sentences, of just the beginning of a Good Social Contract that defines the best interests of the Majority Common Population, using your Hegelian Unity of Balance Mathmatica and x=x logic. You can even sublate it if you desire…

Or admit that; while you memorized the stuff in the textbook “real good”, you still haven’t yet figured out how to actually implement any of it in any practical fashion, so you’re just busting our chops in the hopes someone here will jump in and show you how its done.

Or just get off the pot.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 19, 2011 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

I can’t help it that you are a poor teacher that repeats things like a catechism without substance or explanation. You can’t. So you remain opaque and we remain free of you. A nice equation, simple and elegant.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 19 at 10:50 am,

“You can repeat the same tired demand over and over, but you
cannot even begin to show an example of what this would look
like when put into action.” —Gary Mont, May 19 at 10:50 am

Mein Kampf is an example of dialectic authored by Adolph Hitler
and used as a political handbook by the Conservative
Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement
and the
Republican Party.

With sophistry the self serving and the greedy demagog can
redefine terms to serve the purpose of propaganda without
having a “unity of balance” that is expressed in the formulaic logic
of x=x as a unifying standard that can be proven by the “unity of
balance” logic of x=x.

When dialectic is used to express a “unity of balance,” any change
on one side of the x=x logic of the dialectic results in an equal
provable change on the other side of the x=x “unity of balance”
that cannot be denied by the logic of x=x; this type of dialectical
logic and balance is absolutely necessary to get past the
demagogic sophist propaganda of those who present a false
sense of advantage in order to obtain self serving benefit for
themselves at the expense of others.

Dialectic as logic and sophistry as propaganda is at the base of all
human dialogue, and this base of dialogue is what we must first
learn and build upon, because best interest is not built upon
sophistry and faulty logic, best interest is built upon the proof of
x=x logic.

“Dialectics explains change as the result of conflict between
opposites which then, so to speak, fuse into a new kind of thing
that embraces both opposites.  The greatest advocate of this type
of explanation was the German philosopher George W.F. Hegel.”
—Doctrines of Metaphysics, The World Book Encyclopedia

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 19 at 3:18 pm,

I answered your question.  It is not my problem if my answer is
beyond your comprehension.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Martha, you provide evidence of a point I’ve made several times…...figures don’t lie, liars often figure.  Similarly, a proof derived from premises which are impossible to define with verifiable precision are useless.  It had indeed occurred to me that you might be an aspiring right wing think wannabe, hence your inappropriate and disruptive attempt at a facade of logic. 

To attempt to ‘validate’, to prove, as if human behavior could be modeled by some natural function created by the hand of God, is the sort of things priests do. 

I love this statement: “How about logic?  Do humans function on anything close to logic, or is logic left solely to inhuman Conservative Right-Wing Republican EXTREMISTS?”  The answer? No.  Humans do not behave logically.  We use a blend of reason, experience and emotion.  That is not to say some humans don;t behave more predictably than others, but their predictable behavior may not even be logical for themselves. 

And if you so admire “right wing extremist logic”, explain to me how, in x=x notation showing sublated unity of balance, the following philosophy is proven, that: “the best outcome for all is achieved by each individual tending solely to their own selfish interests”. 

You act like a college freshman who’s in love with a concept that can make them look smarter than they are.  I doubt you can actually do anything of value with it.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 19, 2011 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

So far MarthaA you can’t get passed your rant. You don’t engage in dialog. You engage in verbal tangles with little to show for it. I find you repetitive and tiresome with little in your favor to keep communicating. How about some information for us to actually use?

Logic is a construct and is used or misused by the wielder. Those on the right seem to be using the most falsehoods these days.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 19 at 10:29 am,

“human don’t function usually, if rarely, in anything approaching
the precision of mathematics. Only machines can.” —Night-
Gaunt, May 19 at 10:29 am

How about logic?  Do humans function on anything close to logic,
or is logic left solely to inhuman Conservative Right-Wing
Republican EXTREMISTS?

The reason I ask is that the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST
Republican Movement
uses dialectic to promulgate, preserve,
protect, defend, and further the x=x dialectic logic of the Right that
they have faithfully used to frame political dialogue from the time
of Nixon to the present, and carefully frame both Right-Wing and
Left-Wing dialogue within the context of the dialogue of the Right.

The use or inability to use sophistry and dialectic is not a function
of being human or inhuman, it is a function of awareness,
intelligence, and education.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 19, 2011 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

MartaA(B):In a “unity of balance, the structure of the “unity of balance”, x-x,  defines the standards in the same way as in mathematica, so that x on both sides of the “unity of balance” is not subject to change, and the mission of the “unity of balance,” rather than to redefine terms as in sophism.

—-

So, we’ve all read this claim about thirty times now Martha, but I’m betting that’s all you got.

You can repeat the same tired demand over and over, but you cannot even begin to show an example of what this would look like when put into action.

Prove me wrong, please.

Use your sublated unity of balance and post for us a portion of a Social Contract with America based on your x=x mathematica.

Show us that your claim is not simply warm air rising out of a hole in the ground next to a sign reading “Genius at Work”

My bet is that even you have no idea what your claim actually means - that you understand it no better than we.

Prove me wrong.

Please.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 19, 2011 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

The oligarchs don’t need democrats, they have their own in both parties, but even so they are destroying the Middle Class so obviously they don’t need it or them except as fools who are helping them to cut their throats.

Once the remaining bulwark against the oligarchs winning all elections is the maceration of the remaining 32.5% of the Public Unions. (Private Unions are down to a paltry 6.9%.) They are the only ones who can help raise enough money to beginning to counter the tidal wave of the Reich wing and their combined money, think tanks, publications and other interlocking directorates they have created or infiltrated.

And a notation, human don’t function usually, if rarely, in anything approaching the precision of mathematics. Only machines can.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

John Best, May 19 at 9:25 am,

From the looks of your two posts it appears an overloaded on meds
is probably YOUR problem.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 19, 2011 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

Sorry about the double post below folks.  Martha…....get back on your meds, huh?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 19, 2011 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

John Best, May 19 at 7:08 am, and John Best, May 19 at 7:15 am,

That someone finds very little difference between your two posts that
are at different times, but relatively the same, interesting.

A “social contract” based upon sophist definition is subject to
interpretation by tropes and redefinition; to be meaningful your “social
contract” would have to have a “unity of balance”, so that your “social
contract” is not subject to sophist definition of standards,
interpretation, and application by tropes to redefine standards and
redefinition to change standards.

In a “unity of balance, the structure of the “unity of balance”,
x-x,  defines the standards in the same way as in mathematica,
so that x on both sides of the “unity of balance” is not subject to
change, and the mission of the “unity of balance,” rather than to
redefine terms as in sophism.

What kind of order would the world have with regard to science and
mathematics if the terms used as a “unity of balance” were subject to
sophist redefinition?  Do you think that A=L-W-H, A=pi R2 or any
other “unity of balance” would provide a valid result?

A “social contract” that is engineered as a sophist document that is not
subject to a “unity of balance” is nothing more than sophist
propaganda used to further the advantage of self serving benefit to
those who engineer the “social contracts.”

Again, you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you want to promote a “social contract” and you are something more
than a self serving sophist, you should promote a “social contract” that
is based upon a “unity of balance”, logic, rather than self
serving sophism.

Dialectic is formulaic in nature and is the language of logic, x=x, a “unity
of balance.”

If you want to promote a “social contract” and you are not a self
serving sophist, promote a “social contract” based upon formulaic logic
that is defined with regard to x=x, so that a “unity of balance” can be
established that is the same for everyone, as in science and
mathematics.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 19, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Some one made the statement, “Republicans never did represent anyone other that their upper 10% minority class and culture.” —Prior to the ‘gilded age’, certainly during the US civil war, the Republicans were at least much closer to being the “party of the people” than were the Democrats.  At least in superficial appearance.  The dynamics of that changeover, prior to the election of 1912, might be interesting or useful. 

The parallels of the gilded age, the additional coalescing of the American plutocracy around the second industrial revolution in the north seem to be relevant to today.  It seems the parties switched roles during this time, at least the Republican party did, while the Democrats garnered support by appearing to represent labor. 

Though remnants of the old roles remain. the ‘blue dog’ Democrats are still placed in poer with the blessing of the remains of the Southern aristocracy, and the ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ did not completely ignore the general well-being of the common population.  It is questionable if there are still any moderate republicans, or if they are just remaining quiet to see if this storm passes.

In any case, if indeed the Republicans were the keepers of the social contract, they abandoned it between roughly 1870 and 1910.  The Democrats appeared to take up the cause of the social contract, at least in a superficial way, just barely enough to retain power.  The policies of the New Deal were in a way amazing.  I do not know what sorts of pressures the 70% were putting on their elected representatives to extract these concessions to the social contract from the ruling class. 

And @ MarthaA, May 18 at 5:20 pm You do your best to pervert the very meaning of the phrase ‘social contract’.  These modern Republicans in using the word ‘contract’ are as Orwellian as can be.  To understand the notion, go back to the Enlightenment and read your Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theory
And, expressing a “social contract”, with the “unity of balance”, x=x, is nothing more than a mis-use of mathematics.  ‘interests’ are not quantifiable entities, so fooling oneself and others with pseudo-math is not only sophistry by deceptive.  Figures don’t lie, liars often figure.  The credibility of math is for real sciences.

In any case, ‘the general will’, expresses as a general understanding, seems essential to guide such a diverse and large population.  We must broadly agree on some basics:
Here is a simplified Social Contract as I would put it:
1. You work from age 20 or so to 60.  40 damn years paying in to the system.
2. Everybody has mandatory military service starting as soon as you leave whatever schooling you can stay enrolled in (grades UP!)
3. Everybody is ENTITLED per this contract, and because they will be paying in, to the best education they can keep up with.  i.e., your obligation during school is to keep grades up, or you give up this benefit.
4. At age 60…..not 70 or some age where a person is ‘spent’, used, worn out, frail, etc.  But at 60, where one can still enjoy life, one retires on a social security pension.
5. The governments charges are many.  Primarily to ensure the long-term value of the currency, and true underlying productivity of the economy.  To encourage ‘productive’ businesses, and impede those that drain and waste capital. 

Bottom line: when any group gets overtly selfish and collects resources to themselves at the blatant expense of the general population, it is a violation of the social contract.  Work to make the pie bigger is great, work to get a bigger piece of the pie is not.  The selfish nature of plutocracies, unions and the politically dependent all scare the members of each group into additional selfish behaviors.  It’s a vicious cycle, an affront to the social contract, and it must be broken because the unchallenged evolution is dystopia.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 19, 2011 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

Some one made the statement, “Republicans never did represent anyone other that their upper 10% minority class and culture.” —Prior to the ‘gilded age’, certainly during the US civil war, the Republicans were at least much closer to being the “party of the people” than were the Democrats.  At least in superficial appearance.  The dynamics of that changeover, prior to the election of 1912, might be interesting or useful. 

The parallels of the gilded age, the additional coalescing of the American plutocracy around the second industrial revolution in the north seem to be relevant to today.  It seems the parties switched roles during this time, at least the Republican party did, while the Democrats garnered support by appearing to represent labor. 

Though remnants of the old roles remain. the ‘blue dog’ Democrats are still placed in poer with the blessing of the remains of the Southern aristocracy, and the ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ did not completely ignore the general well-being of the common population.  It is questionable if there are still any moderate republicans, or if they are just remaining quiet to see if this storm passes.

In any case, if indeed the Republicans were the keepers of the social contract, they abandoned it between roughly 1870 and 1910.  The Democrats appeared to take up the cause of the social contract, at least in a superficial way, just barely enough to retain power.  The policies of the New Deal were in a way amazing.  I do not know what sorts of pressures the 70% were putting on their elected representatives to extract these concessions to the social contract from the ruling class. 

Bottom line: when any group gets overtly selfish and collects resources to themselves at the blatant expense of the general population, it is a violation of the social contract.  Work to make the pie bigger is great, work to get a bigger piece of the pie is not.  The selfish nature of plutocracies, unions and the politically dependent all scare the members of each group into additional selfish behaviors.  It’s a vicious cycle, an affront to the social contract, and it must be broken because the unchallenged evolution is dystopia. 

And @ MarthaA, May 18 at 5:20 pm You do your best to pervert the very meaning of the phrase ‘social contract’.  These modern Republicans in using the word ‘contract’ are as Orwellian as can be.  To understand the notion, go back to the Enlightenment and read your Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theory
And, expressing a “social contract”, with the “unity of balance”, x=x, is nothing more than a mis-use of mathematics.  ‘interests’ are not quantifiable entities, so fooling oneself and others with pseudo-math is not only sophistry by deceptive.  Figures don’t lie, liars often figure.  The credibility of math is for real sciences.

In any case, ‘the general will’, expresses as a general understanding, seems essential to guide such a diverse and large population.  We must broadly agree on some basics:
Here is a simplified Social Contract as I would put it:
1. You work from age 20 or so to 60.  40 damn years paying in to the system.
2. Everybody has mandatory military service starting as soon as you leave whatever schooling you can stay enrolled in (grades UP!)
3. Everybody is ENTITLED per this contract, and because they will be paying in, to the best education they can keep up with.  i.e., your obligation during school is to keep grades up, or you give up this benefit.
4. At age 60…..not 70 or some age where a person is ‘spent’, used, worn out, frail, etc.  But at 60, where one can still enjoy life, one retires on a social security pension.
5. The governments charges are many.  Primarily to ensure the long-term value of the currency, and true underlying productivity of the economy.  To encourage ‘productive’ businesses, and impede those that drain and waste capital.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 18, 2011 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 18 at 6:21 pm,

The Right could not possibly destroy the 70% majority populace
without the help of the middle class Democrats, but the middle
class conservative/moderate Democrats have been cooperating in
the demise of the majority population since the 1980’s, because
the middle class determined that the majority population are
Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons and do not need representation. 

The 70% majority populace as a class and culture who are not
Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons need to organize as a class and
culture for their own representation, because Democrats do not
represent the majority population and the Republicans never did
represent anyone other that their upper 10% minority class and
culture.

If the 70% majority populace as a class and culture organize they
can take over the Democratic Party and have a chance of getting
real representation for themselves, but as long as the 70%
majority populace wait on the Democrats or the Republicans to
represent them, it will never happen and slavery wages will be all
they can expect for a future.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 18, 2011 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

To criticize is easy, to form actionable ideas is harder.

Not everyone can lead, so we must chose our leaders wisely. And we are running out of time as I talked about since our adversaries—-the upper 10% that own 50% (or more) of the wealth of this nation, have been drawing their plans against us and carrying them out and have won more than lost. For many decades. That is what I’m talking about.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 18, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

To criticize is easy, to form actionable ideas is hardy.

Not everyone can lead, so we must chose our leaders wisely. And we are running out of time as I talked about since our adversaries—-the upper 10% that own 50% (or more) of the wealth of this nation, have been drawing their plans against us and carrying them out and have won more than lost. That is what I’m talking about.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 18, 2011 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 18 at 5:28 pm,

Are you wanting to follow?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

There are some who are against the very idea of any kind of contract no matter who real, and clean and clear. They will always call it what it isn’t simply because it can never be in their eyes.

So any alternatives? I’m waiting with baited breath.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, May 18 at 4:54 pm,

Go figure, a “social contract” that is required to be something more
than a self serving sophist document meant to serve the interests of
the few at the expense of the many——I doubt that such a thing will
ever exist.

I do believe that it is possible to begin using accumulated data over
the past several hundred years to start to build a model for a “unity
of balance” between sublated public and private interests, however.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

Here is a post on ‘Lincoln Would Cry’ on another Truthdig thread about
the Republican Platform, which would be the Republican “social
contract”:

“By TDoff, May 16 at 6:52 pm

Why all the doom and gloom about the republican chances in the 2012
presidential campaign? Look at the terrific platform they have made to
run on, just the first seven planks of their platform pretty much tell the
tale they have to sell:

1. Renege on all the debts The Dummy and his NeoCon Cabal ran up
from ‘01-‘09…unless we get our way on

2. Keeping the tax breaks for the top 1% of the richest of the rich, to
make certain they pay less taxes than the lazy, shiftless other 99%,
and

3. Reduce all this educational crap for the kids of the general populace,
they’re never going to amount to anything, anyway, not with the
system we have set up, and

4. Get rid of unions. The really rich, the folks who ‘create all the jobs’,
don’t need no mobs of poor people telling them how to run their
businesses, if they didn’t now how to run them, they wouldn’t be rich
(and the secret is, hire less people than you really need, and work
their a**es off, paying them   less than they need to live, so they
really NEED their jobs, and won’t give the boss any lip), and

5. Cut out this health care boondoggle for old folks, they’re a drag on
the economy, anyway, they’re too poor to buy much and they take up
a lot of space and use a lot of valuable air and water, so why have
them hanging around forever. While we’re at it, we should stop paying
them for sitting around on their a**es all day, criticizing us movers and
doers, so we’ll cut out Social Security, by privatizing it and letting Wall
Street steal it’s ‘Trust Fund’, and

6.This health care for poor kids is another waste, we only want and
need healthy kids in our society, sick kids who keep needing doctors
aren’t going to be able to work hard, and sustain themselves working
the twelve-hour days and six and seven-day weeks we’ll get back to
after the unions are gone. So we’ll give the old folks and the poor kids
vouchers for health care, and let the insurance companies rip them off,
and

7. What’s this ‘Comity’ crap? We don’t play well with others, and it’s
our way or the highway, ‘cause ‘god’s’ on our side, which is why we’re
always right, totally, far, right.

Geez, a political party that has ‘god’ on their side, how can they miss?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 18, 2011 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

One can always make whatever contracts one pleases with specific other persons or groups.  The ‘social contract’ is usually understood to contain or comprehend the whole of a community regardless of whether any particular person has voluntarily agreed to it.  So this is very different from the usual sort of contract.  As I said before, it’s an uneasy metaphor.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 18 at 3:13 pm,

That would be a “social contract” based upon sophism, tropes, and
propaganda, right? ——rather than a “social contract” based upon a
“unity of balance.”

What would be the point of another document based upon sophism,
tropes, and propaganda?——the fact that if the sophism, tropes, and
propaganda is good enough the people who are being taken advantage
of will perceive a false sense of advantage in their disadvantage and
vote for another means of allowing themselves to be used against their
own best interest?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 18, 2011 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

One can work on and present a social contract and have all of us vote on it. One can do it sans corruption but it will be hard in our big money corrupting country right now. We can try unofficially first. But it will take money and organization which is sorely missing in fighting the present corruption by the rich and powerful. So in a way it is a dilemma of action. Which to do first? Or do them simultaneously? Clear, concise, at first, then get down to the details. Any suggestions?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, May 18 at 12:29 pm,

A “social contract” that is not inclusive of a “unity of balance” for all
classes and cultures, the Aristocracy, the Middle Class, and the
Populace, is nothing more than a self serving class and cultural
document for the class and culture that promulgates the document;
to pretend otherwise is a self serving fiction for those who have
engineered the tropes and sophist definition of the document to
serve their interests at the expense of others whose interests are
taken advantage of.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 18, 2011 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think there can be a contract in the legal sense without informed, voluntary consent.  The ‘social contract’ is therefore an uneasy metaphor—in actuality, the social order is simply imposed by power.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 17, 2011 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 17 at 12:33 pm,

“There’s nothing wrong with a widespread understanding of what
we form government to do,” John Best, May 17 at 12:33
pm

Understanding is another way of saying causality, and causality is
an expression of cause and effect; the beginning, the end, and all
points in between; x=x.

I have asked that you provide a causal balance, x=x, for
your assertions, you refuse to do so and then harp on
understanding, which is an expression of x=x that is undefined.

Provide logical clarity, x=x, of your assertions if you are
anything more than a propagandistic sophist seeking to hide
behind unsupported singular definition of ideology.

Yes, “ashamed.”

Provide the x=x “unity of balance” with regard to the “social
contracts” you make reference to, if you are not harping on the
sophistry of special interests and greed.

If you are talking a “social contract” that expresses a “unity of
balance” between public and private interests, you should say so.

If you are talking about a “unity of balance” between public and
private interest, in the equation x=x, x would represent public and
private interests on both sides of the equation, so that a “unity of
balance” could be established in a causal manner to evaluate
balance between actions and standards.

A “social contract”, without the “unity of balance”, x=x, is
nothing more than sophistry.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 17, 2011 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

A social contract that includes everyone this time unlike when the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights was added. (To correct the mistakes of our forefathers.)

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 17, 2011 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

The ‘social contracts’ you reference are not social contracts at all, and are typical ‘hijackings’.  The notion of a social contract needs revitalized with meaning restored to the pre-hijack state. 

‘Ashamed’?  BS.  There’s nothing wrong with a widespread understanding of what we form government to do, what we will do to support it, what we expect from it. Go back to your enlightenment thinkers and review, but don’t get your thoughts stuck in the clouds.  Media noise has drowned out the public discourse envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and we need to re-communicate, re-forge the social contract for today.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 16, 2011 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 16 at 6:43 pm, Cliff Carson, and Gary Mont,

The following sophist documents from the Republican Party are
examples of Conservative Right-Wing Republican EXTREMIST
“Social Contracts” and the plight that our nation, the United States
is presently in, is an example of what EXTREMIST propaganda and
sophistry of “social contracts” left unchallenged can do to destroy
the prosperity of a nation, for the short term benefit of the few at
the expense of the many.

Republican Social Contract - 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

Republican Social Contract - 2010
http://www.thecontract.org/

Again, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 16, 2011 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 16 at 3:14 pm, John Best, May 16 at 2:42 pm,  Cliff
Carson, May 16 at 2:27 pm, Cliff Carson, May 16 at 5:39 pm, and
Gary Mont, May 16 at 4:55 pm,

Your posts are sophist propaganda that have no objective basis in
logical fact and you have admitted as much by your failure to
document your sophist claims.

You people are sociopathic and without shame, who by your own
admission would take advantage of little children and engineer
Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons and the like to serve your own best
interests at their expense and your only requirement is that those
who you take advantage of do not know the difference; this is the
height of immorality, and as I have said before, you should all be
ashamed of yourselves, but like the rest of your Conservative
Right-Wing Republican EXTREMIST ilk, you are not.

Your “social contract” is garblefarb and you know it and you have
as much as admitted it by refusing to document your claims.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 16, 2011 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

The parallels are interesting, huh?  Let’s hope we can avoid the couple of decades that followed. 

That social contract also needs the social obligations interwoven I think.  I made some proposals in a far earlier post.

In any event, I’d imagine if we throw the “Power Of English Majors” at it (P.O.E.M, yes, stolen from Garrison Keillor) and fashion the guts of the social contract into lyrics, verse, poem, nursery rhyme, etc.  the idea of a social contract might seep back into the American consciousness and displace these damn ‘free market’ ‘every man for himself’, sorts of ideologies. 

Then, perhaps “All that NEED be done is to do what CAN be done to encourage awareness (of the social contract) and let the process work.”  (Thanks Marty)  Perhaps with the concepts of a social contract at hand, the people would have a background to measure the political double-talk against.  But, if there were verse and music to the social contract, then there is music for a peaceful revolution.  I somehow see this as a necessary tool for any resistance to gather support.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 16, 2011 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

Yes

I think it safe to say that his policies signaled the end of the Robber Barons.  But then again when you slay the Hydra you have to cut off all the heads.

They are back now more emboldened than ever.  And maybe even more powerful.  Republicans tore down the pen that kept them under control. Clinton signed their release, now there are back on the people.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

Forget it folks. MarthaB has nothing more to add to this discussion, so he has simply tossed the ball into your court and “demanded” you keep him in the loop by responding.

And yeah, I’ve decided that MarthB is the husband. Never met a woman that proud of having testicles.

Note - testimony is from swearing on one’s testis.
It was a man’s world…

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Cliff for the kind words. 

I like Teddy Roosavelts version of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Deal

Also, his cousins version wasn’t too shabby. 

But underneath, there is an understanding.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

Why don’t you try Martz, to respect the people who paid for your degrees?  You renege.  You stab the very people who helped you get to your ivory tower. 

They held up their end of the contract.  Your education is proof.  Put that in x=x form and smoke it.  God, ever since Newton, more liars try to dress their turds up in some form of pseudo math to sell them. 

But, you have The People to thank for your situation, and you’re undeserving.  The People upheld the Social Contract through their government.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 16, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

John Best

Thank you

“Again, it’s the social contract.  It involves the long term value of our money, the security of our manufacturing capability, the robustness of the family farm and agricultural diversity, the ability of an everyday American kid to get a good education, the presence of a robust economy (not ‘service’ BS), the old person to get their retirement benefits, etc.”

You have said it well, with simplicity, and powerfully.

Adhering to The Social Contract is the key.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 16, 2011 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

Well, Johnie, forget transferring YOUR pissed off
onto me.

Provide the sublated logical basis for
your claimed “social contract;” I am not interested
in your sophist claims or your singular ideological
definition.

Provide the logical basis for your “social contract” in
an x=x format for validation perusal if you can.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 16, 2011 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

At the risk of pissing you farther off Marthy, I’ll just stay on point. 

“All that NEED be done is to do what CAN be done to encourage awareness (of the social contract) and let the process work.”  This is right.  This needs to be the thing that is on every bodies lips.

The social contract is valid Marthy, it’s We the People saying we’ll work for a common nation, in which we ignore spewage from narrow-minded ill-meaning pseudo-intellectuals like yourself.

Also, figures never lie, liars often figure…...we can ignore the media types (the economists behind the curtain) who are helping rob us blind. 

The notion of a social contract resonates with all Americans, it is the echo of the ringing of the liberty bell, and would not take much to turn up the volume.  Any well-meaning person can do this.  They can flesh out the social contract fairly easily because it’s almost inborn.  Then spread it. 

The common people all know something has been stolen from us.  But what?  Again, it’s the social contract.  It involves the long term value of our money, the security of our manufacturing capability, the robustness of the family farm and agricultural diversity, the ability of an everyday American kid to get a good education, the presence of a robust economy (not ‘service’ BS), the old person to get their retirement benefits, etc. 

I’ll not follow your attempts to disrupt, Marthy.  You know we’re on to something and it bugs the hell out of you, so you do your best troll thing to distract and disrupt.  Aint-a-gonna work. 

“All that NEED be done is to do what can be done to encourage awareness (of the social contract) and let the process work.”  This is right.  This needs to be the thing that is on every bodies lips.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 16, 2011 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

John Best, May 15 at 5:20 am,

The type of “social contract” that you make reference to is an
invalid contract, because it is a contract that is used to
structurally define ideological doctrine by an unbalanced singular
definition of sophistry
, rather than a sublated “unity of balance,”
logic
, to establish the certainty of a unity of balanced
benefit
between the parties to the contract.

To claim a “social contract” between the advantaged and
disadvantaged that provides a disproportionate unsublated
“unity of benefit” to the advantaged
at the expense of the
disadvantaged to be a valid “social contract”, when that “social
contract” provides a false sense of advantage to the
disadvantaged
based upon the singular definition of sophist
ideology, and real advantage to the advantaged is a false claim
to establish an invalid “social contract” as valid; any
“social contract” made in this manner without a unity of
balance
between the parties to the “social contract” is an
invalid “social contract.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 15, 2011 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

John Best, May 15 at 5:20 am,

So, what is the ratio of Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons that should be
engineered to serve in support of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness with freedom and justice for all in YOUR scheme of
things?—http://www.huxley.net/bnw/four.html

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 15, 2011 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

Social Contract 101: At birth, we have no idea who has potential and who doesn’t.  We The People provide education, to rich and poor, so the hard working and naturally gifted can reach their full potential.  This is the cream.  The ‘milk’, won’t get above them except by thievery.  But the ‘milk’ need not resort to thievery.  The ‘Cream’, that is, the deserving wealthy, will see to it that the opportunities they had will be repaid to the next generation, and that the ‘milk’, those who didn’t prosper quite so well as the cream, aren’t left to rot of disease in life or poverty in old age.  This is not charity…..the milk (the common folk) serves in the military, and works at the blue collar jobs that need done, and in fact are the backbone of the infrastructure which supports the lifestyle of the more fortunate.  They earn what they get, we all do. 

America is (was) a place where the cream can rise, not to indulge exclusively in selfish excess, but to continue the tradition of a nation which supports the ‘common good’.  That is, a nation in which the social contract is sacred.

There are always going to be those parasitic bacteria which ruin the economy for everybody, and, from within both political parties, and using widespread trickery, are increasing their numbers to feed from the production of the common people.  They have safety in numbers, and control of the media and many illegitimate lobbying efforts.  The ‘common people’ will learn this on their own terms for now.  Perhaps in time a gradual improvement of general learning will happen, but very few, including me, are going to listen to a pompous MarthaX.

The X stands for “I don’t give a shit”.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 14 at 7:30 pm,

Sounds like YOU have some serious problems, GaryX.  Did one of your
imaginary friends reveal this information to you during a psychotic
episode, or what?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 14 at 7:24 pm,

If you are placing me in company with MalcolmX by calling me
MarthaX, I take your title as a compliment.

The issues addressed in your post are exactly why it is so
important that the American Populace, the 70% Majority Common
Population of the United States be educated in the understanding
and application of sophism, dialectic, and rhetoric, so that they can
represent their best interests politically in the making and
enforcing of legislated law and order that serves their best
interests and the best interests of society as a whole.

The American Aristocracy, as a class and culture, representing a
false sense of advantage as the best interest of the American
Populace is unacceptable, and the American Middle Class
representing the American Populace as stepchildren is
unacceptable.

The only way that the best interests of the American Populace will
be represented in the making and enforcing of legislated law and
order that serves their best interests is if the American Populace
represents their own best interests in the making and enforcing of
legislated law and order, and the only way that the American
Populace can represent their own best interests in the making and
enforcing of legislated law and order is if the American Populace
becomes educated in sophism, dialectic, and rhetoric, so that they
can understand the weaponization of sophism, dialectic, and
rhetoric that is being used to deny them equal representation and
benefit from the making and enforcing of legislated law and order
here in the United States.

As you are no doubt aware, both the Nobles, the American
Aristocracy, and the Nearly Nobles, the American Middle Class,
originated from the American Populace as the cream, as you call it,
but first they were milk before they were cream. 

If the milk cannot rise above the cream, why is it that the British
Nobility as the cream are not in power in Washington, D.C.?—and
how did the milk of the British colonies become the cream that is
the American Aristocracy and American Middle Class?

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 14, 2011 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

MarthA, or possibly MarthaB this time…. “I don’t know where you come up with the MarthaB, but my title on this blog is MarthaA, but if it makes you feel more secure, it doesn’t bother me at all GaryZ.

—-

Well, only cuz you asked real nice and said pretty please….

The poster who can post actual english sentences without repeating the words nine times in different orders, and without resorting to claims of godhead and enlightenment bordering on a pure energy state, is MarthaA.

I was aware of only MarthaA when I began posting here.

The self-absorbed poser-in-the-light-of-pure-reasoning, who wants everyone to know that they went to college or university and got an A+ in esoteric philosophy, slippery sophistry and Hegelian bafflegab and who believes they can word-wammy anyone, anytime, and who is extra-sensitive to comments depicting them as less than god-like, is MarthaB.

That these two creatures are not one and the same seems obvious. I assume one to be the husband and the other to be the wife, although I haven’t a clue which might be which.

However, if only one person is truly involved in these posts, please, seek medical help ASAP.

Oh and thank you once again for confirming that you have nothing more of value to add to this discussion. I find such honesty incredibly refreshing.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 14, 2011 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

Marthx, Nobody is thinking the milk is going to rise above the cream.  This is about some rotten pathogens that have found their way into the cream and are going to spoil the whole mess.  They, the rotten ones,  are skimming wealth that needs to be re-invested in a range of things here in the US. 

The global economy is set up on a massive, massive boom-bust basis.  We need not re-hash the various bits, but certainly, this is not about something as petty and short sighted as turning the tables on the rich.  Far from it.  Actually, the ‘decent’ wealth holders have far more to lose than the 70% common population.  Among that 20% and 10% are some very nasty folks who do not understand or care that absolute control over a manure pile stinks.  And of course they have their supportive piss-ants within the 70%. They’re pissing in every-bodies Cheerios.  And that 20%?  The rotten ones that have moved into the top 10% are now ‘locking up’ the 20% ‘middle class’ right below them. 

So what’s so different about this time in history?  You say, hasn’t it always been this way?  We’ve never had so big a population depending on an economy two or three main energy sources.  That 10% is floating on an infrastructure that floats on black gold.  It’s running out.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

Cliff Carson, May 14 at 6:40 pm,

You are saying that you are the kind of a person who would talk to
little children in preschool and grade school at their own level and not
educate them, so that they can function on a higher level; this is the
essential reality of your efforts of pandering dialogue that I call
Springeresque Pandering and the reality of what you are saying
means.  This is not acceptable behavior and you should indeed be
ashamed of yourself.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 14 at 6:12 pm,

The right pandering tools to lead others to a false sense of their
advantage, so that commercial benefit can be obtained from their
lack of awareness is what you are talking about; if this was not
the case, you would be talking about bringing up the level of
common dialogue, rather than pandering down to the lowest
cultural norm, so that those with the knowledge of cyclical culture
can lead those common folk, as you call them, because they are
limited to culture at the zero point, knowledge limited to their own
personal experience.

Words and deeds do not match with regard to your claims of not
being a Springeresque Panderer.  It is necessary that you not be a
Springeresque Panderer, if you do not want your deeds as a
Springeresque Panderer to be considered as Springeresque
pandering.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

We can only hope your information is lost on her. We don’t want her to improve do we? Not I.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

I have held my impression of you to myself.  But when you state that I should be ashamed of myself for suggesting that we have discourse with those that don’t understand, in a language that they do understand, you reveal how truly out of touch you are.
Are you for real?

You have tried to impress the people on this thread by your use of obscure phrases and words but all you seem to do is alienate those whom you would like to praise you for your self-proclaimed superiority.  You are fooling only yourself.

Realize MarthA, you are not superior, we the users of this thread have already settled that, so I guess the last words to pass between you and me will be a statement:

Your attempt to force acceptance by those on this thread by your antisocial insults is the worst of behaviors so as to the future I refuse to acknowledge your insults unless you ask me for help to help you overcome your problem.  If you do that, I will try to provide that help.  First though, you need to admit to yourself your shortcomings.  I am sure you know them.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

Actually Martha, it’s not pandering at all.  It’s simply using the right tool for the job.  And, it’s not so simple.  Try it. 

Like Gary, I’d hoped you were not just a disruptive troll, but I see nothing of any value in what you’ve written.  Actually, I’ve read more than I should admit, perhaps not as much as Gary.

In any case, I’m not suggesting speaking ‘down’ at all.  Perhaps you consider your self to be their better, but I’m taking a big humility pill, and just considering myself very, very lucky to have had a chance to get a decent degree, and to have been at a high school that prepared me, and for everything that came before.  This includes parents who basically said, “School comes first, and if you don’t do well….... (serious threat follows) (and they meant it).  Long way of saying, I was real lucky. 

Anyhow, I’m an accomplished electrical engineer, and I have a degree in ‘Letters, Arts, and Science as well.  That’s the fancy new way of saying ‘Liberal Arts’, so, I might not be a high-falutent doctor like you must surely be, but I am one of the sharper tools in the shed.  That does not make me better than anybody. 

Actually, I think it’s only fair to recognize that intellectual snobs are not even second rate to the average volunteer EMT.  Frankly, if I were to use the vocabulary and book learning to separate myself above the common folk, it would be a terrible wrong.  I went to a state university, and a public high school, both of which were paid for by who?  The common people.  You know Martha, you have done a hell of a service here.  You’ve made me realize how (almost used ‘putrid’) stinky and rotten people like you are. 

If you think you’re isolated in some ivory tower that isn’t going to come crashing down, good for you.  If you come down, you can kiss my lily white hairy arse.

Now geez people, let’s not get all wrapped up in MArtha’s crap.  That’s what gets her hot and bothered.  The common folk have been turned away from their government because they think it’s working against their interests.  That sense of betrayal can be set right.  Folks might get out and raise the kind of hell that is required, but they have to understand what they lost: The Social Contract.  Now, the name ‘social contract’ itself might be poison.  It sounds like ‘Social ism’.  What is it?  It’s our promise to ourselves.  It’s our promise to each other.  Our government used to be better, but it’s been slowly hijacked, turned against us.  If we don’t straighten it out, it’ll become more oppressive.  If we abandon it, the ones who hijacked it will take complete control.  Plain talk…..the government isn’t the enemy, those who corrupted it are the enemy. 

To get it back, we need to understand the basics, the social contract.  We need to state it plainly so kids can understand it, and we need a more complicated form we can use to hold politicians accountable.  If the Dems and Reps won’t get with the program, the social contract (or whatever it’s called) becomes the platform for a new party.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 14 at 3:21 pm, & Gary Mont, May 14 at 3:24 pm, &
Gary Mont, May 14 at 4:49 pm,

I don’t know where you come up with the MarthaB, but
my title on this blog is MarthaA, but if it makes you feel
more secure, it doesn’t bother me at all GaryZ.

The process described in your 1st two posts is happening, but the
Middle Class is definitely NOT the class and culture that is acting as
an agent of change for the overall benefit of society as a whole.

The Middle Class pretense is that it is a singularity as a class and
culture in the middle of something that does not exist on either
side of its middle; the 10% of the Rich that are individuals on one
side and the 70% of the populace that are the poor and varying
degrees of the genteel poor that are living hand to mouth on their
paychecks and credit on the opposite side.

The agent of change in the United States is the 70% Majority
American Populace as a class and culture that are trying to
implement a new order to replace the existing order of the
American Aristocracy and the American Middle Class singularity
that presently dominate society within the United States as a class
and cultural duopoly comprising a 30% minority population.

The 20% American Middle Class will do nothing to endanger its
class and cultural control over the 70% Majority American Populace
in the making and enforcing of legislated law and order that gives
them control and benefit over and from the American Populace
that are a 70% Majority Common Population of the United States.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 14 at 3:21 pm, & Gary Mont, May 14 at 3:24 pm, &
Gary Mont, May 14 at 4:49 pm,

I don’t know where you come up with the MarthaB, but
my title on this blog is MarthaA, but if it makes you feel
more secure, it doesn’t bother me at all GaryZ.

The process described in your 1st two posts is happening, but the
Middle Class is definitely NOT the class and culture that is acting as
an agent of change for the overall benefit of society as a whole.

The Middle Class pretense is that it is a singularity as a class and
culture in the middle of something that does not exist on either
side of its middle; the 10% of the Rich that are individuals on one
side and the 70% of the populace that are the poor and varying
degrees of the genteel poor that are living hand to mouth on their
paychecks and credit on the opposite side.

The agent of change in the United States is the 70% Majority
American Populace as a class and culture that are trying to
implement a new order to replace the existing order of the
American Aristocracy and the American Middle Class singularity
that presently dominate society within the United States as a class
and cultural duopoly comprising a 30% minority population.

The 20% American Middle Class will do nothing to endanger its
class and cultural control over the 70% Majority American Populace
in the making and enforcing of legislated law and order that gives
them control and benefit over and from the American Populace
that are a 70% Majority Common Population of the United States.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, or MarthaB:It sounds to me, from your post like you are insecure in your own education and intelligence and that you are trying to transfer your own insecurity off onto me and the general population as a whole.

—-

My sincere thanks for confirming that you have nothing more of value to add to this discussion, and for your suggestion that I disregard any of your childish attempts to generate angry discourse between us in future.

May the light, someday, stop shining directly into your eyes.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Cliff Carson, May 14 at 12:23 pm,

“We should get on their level and talk with them in a manner that
they might more easily understand.”
—Cliff Carson, May 14 at
12:23 pm

Your post, a good example of Springeresque pandering says that the
Jerry Springer School of Understanding is all that the general
population, the American Populace, needs; you should be ashamed
of yourself.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 14 at 2:08 pm,

Consider that you may be the one that is opaque and that everyone
else does not come down to your level.

If you can get past Springeresque pandering, spread the light and
those who feel its radiance will grow and develop from that light in
proportion to their level of development, if you have any light to
spread.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 14 at 6:16 am,

We need not speak down to the general population.

We need to set a standard, define that standard and create
expectations that the general population implement that standard in
day to day discourse; this is what I am doing and this is what I
expect others to do, rather than to pander down to standards of
sophistry and dialectical manipulation that is used to lead believers,
rather than to encourage independent thought and dialogue.

Those who would play the role of Jerry Springer
and pretend to be in service to spreading the
light of awareness to the general population, the
American Populace, are not spreading
awareness, they are spreading a false sense of
awareness and benefit from which they can
obtain benefit in the same way as Jerry Springer
does.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 14, 2011 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

John Best:By the way, at some point the idea of a new ‘social contract’ was brought up.  I think it needs ultra-simplified, not detailed out.

Personally, I think its long overdue. While the American Constitution has stood its ground through numerous attempts by the fascista to rewrite it in their image, it was simply too difficult and instead, the HomeLandSecurity project became a necessity. The only way to fully corrupt the old constitution was to simply eliminate it altogether.

On the other hand, the old constitution contained a number of outdated concepts and ideals now perceived as simply elitism, racism, sexism or silly.

A new Constitution should also be COMPLETELY free of anything even remotely resembling any mention of religion, save to note that No Religion may EVER legally interfere with politics in any way ever. To even attempt such interference will result in immediate inclusion of the religion on the tax rolls and immedite audit of ALL the religion’s assets, world-wide.

What I meant by detailed however, was more along the lines of the inclusion of side-text that limits and explains precisely the meanings of the statutes or paragraphs of constitution, so that no new meanings may be purposely misconstrued by future fascists with an army of lawyerish Agents.

Each papragraph of legalese should have a sidebar explanation of the intent of the authors and the reason behind the paragraph’s purpose, written in simple layman’s terms. I expect this material will heavily outweigh the legalese text in size.

This process, in fact, should be adopted by all legislation, simply because most legislation affects the poor classes and so the poor classes -until such time as their education stops being deficient - should be able to read what affects them legally.

And no, I do not perceive lawyers to be an endangered species - at least not without a huge shit-eating grin appearing on my face….

It never ceases to amaze me to what extremes the truly wicked are willing to go to get what they desire, but it amazes me more how honest men and women fail utterly and repeatedly to comprehend this.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 13 at 10:43 pm,

It sounds to me, from your post like you are insecure in your own
education and intelligence and that you are trying to transfer your
own insecurity off onto me and the general population as a whole. 

I am sorry for you that I made you feel insecure, but I cannot do
anything about your insecurity. 

I am what I am, and I speak from within as a radiant expression,
rather than a reflected expression; I suggest that you do the
same, rather than to continue to try to reflect what you think
others expect.

Awareness IS a process.  All that can be done is to do what can be
done to encourage awareness and let the process work.  In the
fullness of time a change in awareness will occur if we all do what
we can to encourage development of a new awareness.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

(Continued from last post)

Typically, the middle classes are hired by the wealthy to do their thinking and planning and orchestrate their criminal operations against the poor of the world for fun and profit.

This is how the middle class gets ahead normally - by being the brains, eyes, feet and hands of the wealthy.

For the Wealthy, these are their Agents in the field.

When the Middle Class Agents hire members of the Poor Classes to do the dirty ground and grunt work, we get Minions.

Elites, Agents and Minions, all working towards the destruction of the social order that created them.

Chaos.

Hardly a wonder why capitalism leads direrctly to disollution.

Social conscience and human nature cause the middle classes to offer their wealth and time to aid the lower classes and this is seen by the wealthy classes as counter-productive and interventions such as war or economic shenanigans are used to disrupt the process every time its noted.

The truth, is that the poor are simply the middle class before they got some education and capital, and the middle classes are simply the wealthy before they became rich and evil.

In my opinion only of course. smile

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 14, 2011 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

John Best:
This is a conscientious cultural shift within the educated or intellectual community ....if we shut out the everyday people, there is hell to pay.

I find it truly sad that those in power always seem so eaqer to see themselves as seperate from and better than the people who created their wealth in the first place. This “we’re better” syndrome reaches its peak when the wealthy wish to actually eliminate the poor because they are an eyesore cluttering up the beauty of the property owned by the wealthy. And because they represent a reminder of the origins of the wealthy they do not wish to remember.

It is, in my opinion, the primary reason we always find ourselves facing fascism and disollution of society.

Again, as with so many aspects of civilization, I blame it on religion which teaches us - although not overtly - that NameYerGoddie Smiles on those he likes and makes life a joy for them.

Since the only folks apparently undergoing any joy happen to be the wealthy, it appears to the wealthy, middle-class and the poor alike, that the wealthy are the chosen of NameYerGoddie.

This gives the wealthy the sense that they are doing the right thing, so they continue to rob the middle-class and poor and lie and cheat and steal because that is how they got where they are. The poor and middle-class literally protect the rich because they hope to one day be favored by NameYerGoddie and thus become rich enough to enjoy all the same normally illegal privileges the wealthy are entitled to under capitalist social rules.

And don’t get me wrong here, every government ever formed - regardless of its lable - was designed to be a capitalist government, for its members and their friends.

Almost any m/billionaire who tells you they got rich through hard work and dilligence is lying through his or her teeth - perhaps there are a few m/billioniares on earth who came about their wealth by sheer luck, or through discovery of something everyone wanted, but they would be the exception not the rule and those folks usually become ruthless bastards once they have their first million, in order to hang onto their wealth among the sharks.

The entire concept that those who have climbed out of the pit should assist those still in the pit in climbing out gets lost real quick once the first climbers realize there is a ton of really cool shit up here that they’ll have to share if they help others climb out - but that is the foundation of capitalism - first come first served, damn the rest.

Our own social engineering leads us to this point every time and its pretty much the test of a civilization to pass this point intact or die the usual death of nations. Revolution or Disollution.

I too would like to see those who have climbed out of the hole, assist those who are still in the hole and in truth,  this is actually happening today all over earth through efforts by the middle class. Its simply too few too late and is being stifled as we speak.

One of the main reasons earth governments have brought about a recession/depression, is to try and stop the middle class from assisting the lower class, by making things dificult for the middle classes financially.

(Continued next post.)

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

Sadly, every attempt to post today (in this particular area only), or even to Preview, results in being shwon the “Your post contains the following errors… page.

So this is a test of a short post to see if its length that is the cause.

Preview works fine….
To post!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Using opaque language does not enlighten the masses or anyone else not clued in on the specialized jargon used. It becomes no better than the chitter of insects for all the information they give to those who cannot comprehend. One can render things in a more intelligable fashion and not sacrifice much in the way of the import of the information. Shenonymous is quite good at it. And she is a trained scholar too. Unlike myself. Which is no doubt obvious. The late Dr. Carl Sagan was another and inexplicably some of his peers didn’t like it!

We need to make it comprehensive and important to those we speak to or else it will never spread and those who are against us will continue to win despite the majority of the population including conservatives, who don’t like being robbed either.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 14, 2011 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

John Best

Your comment of 6:16AM is excellent.

If we are really interested in helping people who don’t or haven’t had the wherewithal to understand the roadblocks to achieving parity with the Intelligentsia, you have cleared a pathway.

We should get on their level and talk with them in a manner that they might more easily understand.  What I referred to as high brow grandstanding never helped anyone, even those who spout it.

It is called the fog level in writing to the lower educated.  It is critical that they who are truly concerned,and are at a higher level of education, don’t need to convince the lesser educated how much smarter they, the upper level,are.  What they need to do is to try and convey/share that knowledge in an understandable method with their target group.

I once had an argument with a highly convinced (of his superiority)University Professor about the merits of teaching methods.

His claim was that Professors with superior knowledge were the best teachers.

My position was that the best Professors were those able to induce an eagerness and an ability to absorb and stir rational connections with the Student.

The argument arose when I was proposing administering a standard test on course subjects to students before and after the courses.  My claim was that a properly constructed standard test demonstrating the before and after student average achievement would be a valuable indicator of the teachers ability to teach.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 14, 2011 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

The McPopulation….. It’s good.  For consumption. Quantity of fiscal and labor nutritiousness over quality.  It speaks to many things. 

But, I’d like to say what I think we should adopt as a responsibility among those of us lucky to have more smarts or education than average.  In my view, we need to be a bit humble, introspective, and accept that if we feel any responsibility toward the general population, the general welfare, we need to re-learn how we communicate.  We are not going to bring the level of the general population’s education up by speaking from some ‘higher’ perspective.  We need to learn to reduce complex situations to their essences, and put those truths into the most digestible form possible. 

I agree with this…“It’s a process.  Do what you can to encourage awareness and let the process work.”  But, to encourage awareness, people must be able and willing to listen.  The guts of the preceding paragraph addresses the ‘able’.  The ‘willing’ is more complex.  One of the factors working against us is the ‘folks’ have been turned against ‘snobby intellectuals’.  And there is no shortage of ‘snobby intellectuals’.  Personally, I get so disgusted sometimes that I am more than willing to let an anti-redneck comment fly.  This is damaging.  It creates impressions which do not heal so easily.  It erodes trust, understanding, cooperativeness.  I’m personally going to be less hostile and condescending, and more ‘down to earth’ in the language I choose.  Unfortunately, this does not allow one to exercise their vocabulary and ability to write in ‘fancier forms’.  It actually takes away that ‘veneer of smartness’ from what is written.  It’s actually not easy, writing in a common McPopulation style, and I don’t claim to even be able. 

So, this is part of what I propose resistance should look like…...a new understanding and acceptance that we are all in this together, we smart asses are doing our part to respect the entire population, and work for our common good.  This is a conscientious cultural shift within the educated or intellectual community…....if we shut out the everyday people, there is hell to pay. 

As I look back at the topics in some of the posts in this thread, there are some weighty topics.  They’ve indeed been derailed!  Why? “As for Martha A/B and their styles, my only beef is with those who aim to deceive, disrupt and derail, not with those who wield knowledge as a hammer, or shield.”  Yes, I agree, and I’ll give people time, but at some point the intentions either become clear or not, and the act of wasting time with over-the-top unnecessary tinges of intellectualism is counterproductive.  I admire your intellectual tenacity in chasing down any tasty bits.  Sorry you weren’t able to come up with a decent snack. 

By the way, at some point the idea of a new ‘social contract’ was brought up.  I think it needs ultra-simplified, not detailed out.  It’s tricky, there almost have to be a complex form, and an executive summary, which is actually the version which is so clear and concise that anyone can read it from a poster and ‘get it’ completely.  But, they can’t ‘get it’ as a personal interpretation…...we must all understand the exact same thing from it.  I think this would be a very worthwhile effort.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

John Best:Gary, you’re a fool to engage on her terms.  Life is too short to argue with nasty asses of any intellect.

—-

Cannot be helped I’m afraid. I will turn over any rock that might have even a fragment of a clue to the things I wish to know, hidden beneath it.

It would appear however that the discoveries beneath this rock have been exhausted, as nothing of an instructory or explanatory nature is being issued from MarthaB, even through direct inquiry.

I have to assume that s/he has nothing more to add, so I’ll chew over what I’ve learned to see if it fits into any of the notches in the rest of my knowledge base and if any sort of extrapolation occurs…. otherwise, I believe our intercourse is done.

As for Martha A/B and their styles, my only beef is with those who aim to deceive, disrupt and derail, not with those who wield knowledge as a hammer, or shield.

Nothing MarthaB has said is actually an attempt to deceive (save to decieve readers into believing s/he is a genius) and in fact the little s/he has actually stated is quite accurate once translated from Hegelian so you can see past the cloud of pride that coats every sentence.

Even you have to agree that the education of the “masses” to the point where they could no longer be lied to politically, would change everything, especially if they were as astute at lying and recognizing lies themselves as the politicans and their masters are today.

Diseducation is the primary reason why slang lingo is developed for ethnic groups by Wall Strret firms and then distributed through TV, movies and music. It removes awareness of the real meanings of words, leaving the MCPopulation truly dumb.

Damn! I think I just created a new meme…

The McPopulation….. scary stuff smile

Sadly, the sum total of MarthaB’s response to an inquiry of hints on making the re-education of America a reality, boils down to:

It’s a process.  Do what you can to encourage awareness and let the process work.

C’est la vie.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 13 at 7:25 pm,

Could it be that the wolf is calling the shepherd elite, so that the
shepherd can be separated from the flock and afford an easy meal
for the wolf and the rest of the pack? ——this sounds to be the most
likely scenario for one who has already admitted to a philosophy of
limited dialectical choices as being superior to diversity.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 13 at 5:42 pm,

It’s a process.  Do what you can to encourage awareness and let the
process work.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 13, 2011 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

If the public owns the airwaves, why is your cable bill going up? http://act2.freepress.net/sign/baker_comcast/

As for Martha….Hedges is far more enlightened.  He has advocated that we speak at the level of the ‘common folk’.  If gas-bags like Martha are going to act all high-brow with the effect of alienating the common folk from engaging in discussion, those people will go elsewhere.  Martha engages in an elitism which is counterproductive, except to stroke her ego. 

Gary, you’re a fool to engage on her terms.  Life is too short to argue with nasty asses of any intellect.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 13, 2011 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA(or more likely MarthaB):Apply your concept of legislated law and order to the American Populace, the 70% Majority Common Population as a class and culture in the United States who are not represented at all in the making and enforcing of legislated law and order in the United States, and we will have a point of agreement.

To begin, I don’t really seek a point of agreement with you. I simply needed to know if you were offering anything valid or just showing off what you learned in college.

While I agree that you’re rationale for how the MCP became disenfranchised and seperated from the herd in America is spot on, I see nothing whatsoever in the way of solutions or even suggestions as to how to reverse the process.

Turning the MCP into the Elite’s equivalent through education such that they are on an equal footing in sophistry and dialogue, sounds lovely, but so far nothing you have posted gives even a clue as to how such a feat might be accomplished.

To suggest that I posit some means of empowering the MCP with the ability to alter the law of the land to remove the dishonest legislations of the past thirty years and then enforce the remaining honest laws themselves, gives no direction or guidance in the formation of methods to make this happen and is again little more than saying I should wave my magic wand and make it so.

As a disenfranchised segment, the MCP have no part in making or breaking legislation, no means of airing grievances or of wording such appropriately, no voice in politics and no idea what to say if they did.

Having spent more than a week deciphering your posts simply because you were unwilling to do so yourself, I have little patience left to try and “imagine” the methods necessary to accomplish the actions your posts show as needed - such as teaching the MCP how to speak at the level of their capital superiors, or alter laws without the consent and particiaption of the judicial branch of government.

Absolutely nothing legal or practical comes to mind.

Unless you can actually show me how Hegel’s mathematica can be used to accomplish some of the goals you state as necessary, I have to surmise that you only know how to analyze the negatives, but not how to activate the positives.

I’ve been fully aware of the causes of the disenfranchisement for decades - it is a clue or two towards the means to reversing it I’m hoping to find.

That the laws of the land need to be purged of the criminal content added by corporate purchase to allow criminal acts to be legally performed is a given, I can see no way such action can be accomplished by the MCP alone.

In fact, I can see no way to convey to the MCP in their present state the absolute necessity of any of these actions.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 13 at 4:31 pm,

And this you declare on the basis of sloganeering propaganda, right?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 10 at 11:20 am,

Clarity and certainty is found by sophists in sophistry and is
defined by the certainty of logic in dialectic and both define what
believers think. 

Believers follow, and will follow both sophistry and dialectic logic.
Generally believers follow propagandistic sophistry more readily
than dialectic logic, because in propagandistic sophistry choice is
reduced from many to “one of only two,” and it is more simple and
convenient for the simple minded to make a choice between what
they like and don’t like as the only choices available. 

More intelligent believers follow positively and negatively framed
dialectic, and those few who have independent thought consider
positively and negatively balanced dialectic logic in a balanced
approach as used in mathematica and the scientific method.

I do not expect you, Night-Gaunt to be in the latter
category of positively and negatively balanced dialectic of
mathematica and scientific method, but I do expect that others in
reading your response will get a chuckle at your lack of
awareness.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

As I warned, at a certain point MarthaA will turn on you. You then will become enemies of an organized kind. You know you will have one when her only response to you will be “blaugh.” But good fortune to you if you can maintain a real dialog. Truly I want dialog, not diatribe.

It is hard to have good gov’t when the rich and powerful and manipulated it and made it their slave. Very difficult indeed.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 13, 2011 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

MArthA,
Your baseless attack is disgusting. 

I advocate that we reduce complex problems to the simplest possible terms.  That is not propaganda.  I have never advocated ‘fooling anybody’, or promoting untruth as truth. 

It is exceptionally useful to find the truthful, illuminating and communicative statements I advocate.  By Godwins Law, I declare that your conversation has gone on far too long.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, May 11 at 3:04 pm,

Apply your concept of legislated law and order to the American
Populace, the 70% Majority Common Population as a class and
culture in the United States who are not represented at all in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order in the United
States, and we will have a point of agreement.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

John Best, May 11 at 5:50 am and John Best, May 11 at 2:10 pm,

You advocate propaganda instead of logic as “something useful;”
your standard of useful is severely flawed and substandard metric.

Interesting that you frame dialectical logic as something not useful
and that you frame sophistic propaganda of sloganeering as
“something useful.”

I wonder how Adolph would feel about your choice of “something
useful”.


The terms of deserving and undeserving wealth or anything else
are terms used in dialectical framing in support of a dialectical loop
of logic.

If you want to be taken seriously, learn to think and dialog outside
the dialectical loop of the Right in your support of the Left, and use
the dialectical frame of the Left, otherwise everything you say
rings of sophist misdirection and promotion of the Right-Wing
frame of dialectic.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 13, 2011 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Cliff Carson, May 10 at 5:44 pm,

Because the spin is framed for Right-Wing benefit doesn’t mean
the Left has to go along with the Right’s frame, but conservative
and moderate Left-Wingers do because IMHO conservative and
moderate Left-Wingers do not represent the Common Majority
Class and Culture, the American Populace.

It’s spin to call Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
“entitlements” and should not be accepted, as nothing that is
given to the other classes and cultures is called entitlements, and
corporate welfare is more entitlement than Social Security,
Medicare or Medicaid.

There is NO BALANCE for Sophism. Sophistry is primarily used to
enable false certainty, which is all that the Republican Right-Wing
has to offer.

Dialectic can be used as a logical basis to enable both true and
false certainty.

With dialectic the main question is what the balance of dialectic is.

Dialectic has BALANCE as X=X is a unity of balance.

To further answer your post, take the example of the dialectical
loop of the Conservative Right and the absence of a dialectical
frame for the Left; tell me why those who would argue the cause
of the Left in the context of the frame of the dialectical loop of the
Right would do so, in expectation of ingenuous response and
benefit that brands those who do so as unable to comprehend
their own best interest?

I have heard it said that there is no shame in taking advantage of
a fool, because the fool will never know the difference, and that if
you don’t take what the fool has someone else will——that the
only result from not taking advantage of a fool is that you will lose
the benefit and someone else will get the benefit.  Do you
suppose that this is how the Right feels about the Left, when the
Left dialogs for the Left’s best interest using the dialectical frame
of the Right, instead of the Left’s own dialectical frame?

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 11, 2011 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

John Best:So, that’s the problem: Wall St.‘s near-monopoly on US investing, and the rules of engagement, not the wealthy.  IMO.

This comes back to an earlier statement under the Kock Brothers article - its the laws of the land that are in need of massive repair. So much of American law has been altered to allow these crooked deals to go through that its no longer the law of the land for America, but simply the law of the crooked jungle.

The primary purpose of placing GWBush in the Whitehouse by any means possible, was to get someone inside who could change laws to suit the crooks, without the need to explain the changes.

The result is a land whose laws specifically allow and promote the shady and dishonest manipulation of the money stream by unscrupulous and greedy men and women for fun and profit. Put an end to the free-lunch feeding frenzy promoted by the law and enforce the laws that attempt to prevent and punish crimes of this nature and methinks you won’t need to do a whole lot of other things to set things right.

As long as the law allows crime under the guise of imaginative accounting, and debt as capital, among a myriad other things, this situation will simply get worse until the system collapses under the weight of the bullshit it supports.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

“They seem to feel that wealth and power are only worth having if they are the only ones to have it.”  There are at least two groups I’ve experienced.  I have no names for them, except ‘The deserving wealthy’ and the undeserving.  It’s a continuum though.

IMO:  Deserving wealthy are rightly concerned that ‘real’ wealth (type not quantity) does not fall to those who will destroy it, and take everybody else s’ wealth down the toilet with them. 

The ‘undeserving’ may have real wealth, or shares of paper wealth (bonds, and speculative but binding instruments backed and leveraged by real wealth).  They are ‘undeserving’, because, well, in a nutshell, they are too short term oriented.  There’s a lot more to it than that, but you probably know what I mean.  Too much high risk, no serious capital increasing investments, too much portfolio in trade instead of production, etc. 

My view of our current situation is that psychologically, once wealth holders (at all levels, meaning amounts of wealth) begin to become predominantly ‘undeserving’, there is not enough serious investment to sustain the production needs of the population.  This is our current position. 

Suppose everybody who has wealth, though their broker or as individuals goes out and invests in high yield investment scenarios.  Remember, at any one time, the amount of real capitol that is represented by money is fixed.  ‘Free marketeers’ would like you to believe otherwise, but the real productive capitol….....mines, fields, machinery, etc, is fixed.  The amount of money and various financial instruments can certainly vary, but ultimately, if the instrument is not bound to real capitol, it is just an IOU.  I digressed, but if too much investment goes to unproductive uses, IOU’s or speculation, the system goes down…..recession, depression or worse.  The current problem is we’ve ‘gone global’ in a way with investing.  Investors are impatient, and uncaring about anything other than rate of return.  In building diversified instruments, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc, nobody actually knows where huge amounts of capitol are invested anymore.  It’s just in the system.  Nobody knows the value of massive chunks of it.  It’s machanical, systematic and those running the whole mess are leveraged and grasping desperately at diversification schemes to hedge their bets, but the diversification schemes are houses of cards! 

To return to your point, the people at the top, I’m fairly certain the knowledgeable ‘good ones’, are more nervous than anybody, they have so much to lose and really can’t handle being poor.  The ignorant rich, think Paris Hilton?  Second generation, etc, and the unsophisticated ‘middle class’ investors are completely oblivious to what’s going on.  They are duped by the advertising psychology of the investment banks, lulled into a sense of security.

But the investment banks have no solid place to invest for the long term.  The only stable element of our economy is defense.  Long term subsidy, tax incentives, commitment bring stability.  We have lost that.  Stable, serious governments with long term commitment create the environment for investment.  Capitol goes there as fast as it can be absorbed. 

Well, this could go on and on…... there is some merit to not diluting wealth (spreading it around) to a populace that will invest it in schemes.  The problem is we have too many people in the investment community who are there to siphon off wealth instead of creating new real wealth through ‘solid enterprise’ investment.  It they were not allowed to get paid on commission or on a per transaction basis it would go a long way toward solving the problems.  It they (various investment counselors) got paid only when a legitimate return on investment was realized, we’d be in great shape. 

So, that’s the problem: Wall St.‘s near-monopoly on US investing, and the rules of engagement, not the wealthy.  IMO.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 11, 2011 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

John Best:Gary, your patience is amazing.  I’ve taken to the method of being more sensitive to having my time bled by selfish people or those with ill-intention.

I figured MarthaA, (or MarthaB as I now suspect), was definitely trying to say something s/he/it felt to be important, because the repitition of the nearly frantic claims was always identical.

I hate a mystery unsolved and just because I could not understand it (yet), was not really sufficent reason to deny it the possiblity of meaning. There are a lot of things I don’t understand (yet), but that certainly does not make them any less real.

As I said before I will often refrain from responding to someone if I feel they sre simply attemtping to get a reaction, but I always read the posts. Finally, MarthA, or B posted the claim in simple language and it all made complete sense. And I’m one iota better for it.

On the other note, I would suggest that instead of simplification of the Social Contract, you might consider - yourself or with others of like mind - building a comprehensive Social Contract. Given that we have now seen a great deal of what can be done to destroy such a contract, it should include in the verbiage, literal safe-gaurds against the usurpation of its meaning by those with external agendas.

It might be nice if the US Consitution was also rewritten to include safegaurds against the sort of manipulation we have recently witnessed in that regard as well. The consitution should also be stripped of its Land Owner rights rules as well and any and all references to any deity.

But your right of course. It is indeed time for the common populations to regain their place in the importance of things, and to grow out of the strict slave-education they have been spoon fed to insure their lack of diplomatic ability in dealing with the properly educated classes.

There is one quirk however I’m not certain can be educated out of the people at the top. They seem to feel that wealth and power are only worth having if they are the only ones to have it. Apparently, the idea that the poor might one day be educated properly and possess great wealth and position makes their possession of the same less interesting, or less shiny somehow.

The truth is that there is an abundance of nearly everything and that everyone could easily share in that abundance equally, but those who already own great gobs of it simply dont want anyone else to have any because that makes theirs less valuable.

Getting past this foible is in my opinion going to be easily as difficult as educating the common majority in the ways of sophistication and logic.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 11, 2011 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

Gary, your patience is amazing.  I’ve taken to the method of being more sensitive to having my time bled by selfish people or those with ill-intention. 

We took a quick tour of Hegel in Philospohy 101 about 30 years ago, and he may or may not be useful in improving the situation.  I can see that speaking in these terms is useless to convey meaningful and convincing persuasion to the 70% common population.  The approach to unnecessarily obfuscate and shroud truth?  I am not going to describe it. 

I’ll repeat something which might actually be useful: figures never lie, and liars often figure.  The ‘Spinners’ Cliff refers to are often in the liar category.  Economists who use legitimate knowledge in their discipline to confuse, or usurp control are part of the charade.  The man behind the curtain. 

What MarthA inhibits is a discussion which might find work-arounds for the current conveyance of mesmerizing content to the masses.  Clear, simple bumper sticker messages, which illuminate the real problems, and convey a useful response,  are not easy to build…In fact, this sort of effort involves very broad understanding which goes far, far outside Hegel, or the various narrow disciplines where people dwell to feel secure and important. 

So, to return to something useful, Cliff mentiones ‘Entitlements’, and that very word, ‘entitlement’ is tainted.  It’s not a ‘freebie’.  People work, pay in to a system, and expect to be taken care of when they need it.  It’s a collective insurance system, and our paycheck deductions provide on-going funding.  A word for us:  Social Contract.  The modern understanding needs to be widely understood so the media cannot fool the 70% with loaded words like ‘entitlements’.

Here is the simplified Social Contract as I would put it:
1. You work from age 20 or so to 60.  40 damn years paying in to the system.
2. Everybody has mandatory military service starting as soon as you leave whatever schooling you can stay enrolled in (grades UP!)
3. Everybody is ENTITLED per this contract, and because they will be paying in, to the best education they can keep up with.  i.e., your obligation during school is to keep grades up, or you give up this benefit.
4. At age 60…..not 70 or some age where a person is ‘spent’, used, worn out, frail, etc.  But at 60, where one can still enjoy life, one retires on a social security pension.
5. The governments charges are many.  Primarily to ensure the long-term value of the currency, and true underlying productivity of the economy.  To encourage ‘productive’ businesses, and impede those that drain and waste capital. 

What we can indeed do is help destroy misappropriation of our language.  ‘productive’ businesses are not anything that makes a nice profit.  What they accomplish is related to their productivity.  Making steel is productive.  Running a service is somewhat productive.  Running a casino if counterproductive, even though they rake in cash and provide ‘service’ jobs.  The 70% common population needs to understand this or we will all suffer.

There are many usurpation of words and concepts which can be attacked. ‘Government’ is one such word.  It has become perceived as external, and a threat.  But, it it were seen as an merely the tool we pay to maintain the social contract above, then we are dedicated to finding corruption and inefficiency in that tool.  It is a tool who’s purpose is to return to us security in retirement, and investment in youth, and we provide the capitol for this return in our productive years.  We should be able to expect that the social contract be clearly stated and understood, that we have an incentive to work together to acheive it.

Topic for another post are the means by which this ‘social concience’ is given a bad connotation.  It is merely ‘team spirit’?  Economic nationalism?  All for one, one for all?  How the hell did working for a common good get a bad name and take a back seat to selfishness?

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 10, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

Well I don’t disagree with you about the definition of Dialectic Reasoning, about Sophistry, or about the lack of knowledge of the 70%.

I think if you read what I wrote, at least once more, you will notice that I wrote that the Elites ( the Rich and Powerful, the 1%, the Nobles, etc.) own the information providers ( Media ) and that they in collusion with the Medial( their lapdogs)get to FRAME the “Spin” to their Agenda.

As an example, take a look at the issue of “Entitlements” ( Named as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) as presented by the Media.  It’s almost a 24/7 thing. And has been heavily in the news for many weeks.

In all that time I have yet to hear one instance where any talking head has mentioned that Social Security and Medicare paycheck deductions plus Medicare Premiums paid by the retired people who have Medicare, bring into the U S Treasury, every year about $270 Billion more than is paid out every year for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.  So there is no way in hell that these “Entitlements” have contributed one damn dime to the debt or deficit.  But the question is:  Have you heard the talking Heads mention this?  Of course you have not but you have heard much said about how much these “Entitlements” cost haven’t you?

Now why would the Nobles want to attack programs that pay their way and then some?  Take a deep breath and think about it.  Come up with an answer?

My answer is that this $270 Billion per year that is supposed to have gone into the SS Fund has simply disappeared, the total amounting to Trillions of dollars. In fact by my math, the amount of money stolen from the taxpayers would pay for these “Entitlements” well past the year 2100.  Or put another way, take the National Debt down to almost as low as the debt was when Bush came into office.

As to the 70%, “Spin” by the Bush bunch brought 67% of that 70% into believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and gave a paved road for the invasion of Iraq. A little fiasco that has cost the 70% over 1/2 of the current National Debt.  The Nobles didn’t pay for it, they profited by it.  And how many Nobles died to enrich the Nobles?  Probably could count them on your fingers.

On the other hand the amount of innocents who died to enrich the Nobles would outnumber the visible stars that you could see on a cold clear winter night.

My income, although retired, places me above that 70%, so this is not whining because I think the Government owes me, rather it is because I want to be a moral, ethical person, someone who is not ashamed to proclaim, I believe that I should be my brothers keeper in his time of need.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

I haven’t been able to respond for two days with the exception of what just went through at 2:08 on the 10th (Today).

Truthdig told me they were checking on it, so I right now neither Truthdig nor I know what is wrong.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 10, 2011 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

Cliff Carson, May 10 at 2:08 pm,

Various gremlins want to destroy dialog.  I answered your May 9
2:10pm post at 8:09pm. Are you going to answer my post?

Report this

By Cliff Carson, May 10, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

I haven’t been able to post a comment on Truthdig for two days.  Haven’t received an answer as to why?

Any explanation?

So I write this and sure enough it gets posted.

Five minutes ago I get “page not found” when I try to post a different comment.  Again, what gives?

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, May 10, 2011 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

MarthaA

You have spent 10 years on this because you refuse to speak plainly; or are indeed incapable of translating Hegelian Mathmatica into plain english, effectively enough to allow others to gain some insight into your dilemna. If you wish to continue for another ten years without extrenal aid, you’re heading in the right direction. I know you can speak english, so either you do so or remain isolated - your choice.

What your chosen formulae actually states, once its aura of Hegelian mysticism is peeled away, is that one can turn a lie into a truth and a truth into a lie and a truth into a better truth and a lie into a better lie and that is the “sophistication” of the ruling class and what you state must be taught to the unrepresented Majority Common Population if they ever wish to become equal to the upper two classes.

The term sublation is here used to refer to a combining of either negative or positive statements to produce the new desired negative or positive statement that defeats the first one. In a nutshell, learning to lie better than the liars.

Two positives multiplied together make a positive.
Two negatives multiplied together make a positive.

It not a big earth shaking logical magic spell at all.

My rephrasing; the Majority Common Population needs to become as wise and as devious as the ruling class if it wants to get representation under the system, is a simplified english rendition that other people will understand.

Hegel is not, by the way the absolute god of logic. He is merely the creator of a mathematical process to estimate human interaction results in a social setting. And in fact, numerous scholars disgree with his premise.

To say that one must be either sophist OR logical, is absurd and completely disingeniuos. The truly sophisticated manipulate the lesser cultures best by using a combination of logic and sophistry - a sublation if you will.

All you’re saying is that the majority has been systematically programmed through education, media and culture to think in a certain way that precludes the ability to converse at the level of those who rule the system - this is absolutely true.

However, once the Majority Common Population are given equal representation under law in the social order and have their own fully comprehensive culture based on their combined history, then you have another problem - you have a full democracy where the desire of the majority becomes the law of the land through simple majority vote.

Since the Majority Common Population is twice the size numerically of the other two classes combined, you have two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. How do you plan to rectify this inevitable trap?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 10, 2011 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, I get that “two party choke-hold’ dynamic.  But what I think people should look at, and that’s why I asked the question, is what is to by gained, and by whom with this ‘growth-growth-growth’ mantra, as applied to population. 

One reason ‘they’, they being the global plutocracy of the nasty, promote population growth is an ever increasing supply of cheap labor, and many, many customers.  So that’s the top-dosn motive, or at least one.  Now, move down through the persuasive tools ‘they’, the global plutocracy of the nasty, use.  Churches?  Ideas like ‘reproductive freedom’?  What?  I’d like a fuller list of the ideas and means of spreading those ideas which keep people breeding. 

For instance, the fear you’ll grow old with no children to look after you.  I son’t think this is used here much, but elsewhere?  Third world? 

How about immortality?  Have a big family so your God given genes survive.  I’ve seen that thinking here in the US. 

Of course there are direct government subsidies.  Popping out babies is a career choice for some.

But then I wonder how all this translates in the minds of the various target groups.  Again, for instance, what does an unemployed evangelical christian really think when they have that 5th little brat they couldn’t support without the welfare of the We the People (our government), and of course, support from their church. 

Similarly, all the populating groups must have some thought process or lack thereof.  It seems this whole area could do with an article and discussion if we hope to disseminate some general understanding of the issues. 

To me, this is what resistance looks like…....making slogans, memes, sound bites to counter the harmful ones that are out there.  I cling to the idea that if people can see what is in their self-interest, just a few more might get with the program.

Report this

Page 6 of 10 pages « First  <  4 5 6 7 8 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

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

Like Truthdig on Facebook