Today's Battle : The Crucifixion of Amanda Simpson
A.E. Brain
By Zoe Brain
06 January, 2010
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/todays-battle-crucifixion-of-amanda.html (http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/todays-battle-crucifixion-of-amanda.html)
I know. I know. There will be those who say all that matters is whether or not Simpson is qualified for the job. And I know there will be those who will wonder why I am even writing about this considering there may be more important topics to discuss but here's a newsflash for you: The transgender thing doesn't play well with millions of conservative Evangelicals. Sorry if Biblical absolutes offend you or are so "1950 ish" but don't think conservative Evangelicals are apologizing for it.
If anyones focus should be directed anywhere it should be toward ignorant prejudice people such as this:-
QuoteWow, this is unbelievable. These deviants are held up and glorified and then put into positions of governance! These creatures should be exiled. Amazing that this he/she/it changes their gender and then parades it in front of everyone. Just goes to show that these creatures are sick and are really not interested in what they profess and that their aim is to shove it in everyone's face and demand that they be accepted as normal-which frankly is as far from normal as possible.
Taken from your link. Sickening really. And these are the kind of people that watch letterman and believe every word.
And these are the kind of people that watch letterman and believe every word.
Umm, no they don't, and no they don't. The Freepers, the WND, the FoF, and all those people are not watching Dave, I'm quite sure they hate Dave as much as they hate on Amanda. They don't watch the MSM at all, they have TV sets tuned permanently on FOX, they watch and listen to Glenn Beck and Rush and call anyone to the left of St. Sara a RINO. They think the Republican Party is far too far to the left and needs to be purified. They think that Obama was born in Nigeria and his election the result of a half-century old conspiracy to somehow put him in the White House. They home-school their kids because they don't much like science. They think secular humanism is a religion. Whatever else they are doing, they are not watching Letterman.
Tekla don't mince my words please, infact don't quote or speak to me ever. I've noticed we are very different people with differing opinions and it would be best to not communicate at all.
Gee, I thought communicating with very different people with differing opinions was one of the best things about the Internet. I guess I was wrong. ::)
Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2010, 11:40:35 AM
And these are the kind of people that watch letterman and believe every word.
Umm, no they don't, and no they don't. The Freepers, the WND, the FoF, and all those people are not watching Dave, I'm quite sure they hate Dave as much as they hate on Amanda. They don't watch the MSM at all, they have TV sets tuned permanently on FOX, they watch and listen to Glenn Beck and Rush and call anyone to the left of St. Sara a RINO. They think the Republican Party is far too far to the left and needs to be purified. They think that Obama was born in Nigeria and his election the result of a half-century old conspiracy to somehow put him in the White House. They home-school their kids because they don't much like science. They think secular humanism is a religion. Whatever else they are doing, they are not watching Letterman.
I think that is the most well done portrayal of my southern baptist Texan family I've ever seen. ;)
I like the blogger's position, and i like the willingness to take on those commenters head on by replying.
It's something I hope to do more of - to say "I am both trans and conservative and you folks are an embarrassment"
BUT
let's also acknowledge the truth: the EASIEST thing to do on-line is find a comments section full of complete single-digit IQ morons on pretty much ANY subject.
Go watch a youtube video - ANY youtube video, they are there.
Go to a sports article or blog, they are there.
ANY place where comments - particularly anonymous comments (and yes, signing "Tom, Dallas TX" is anonymous, even though there's a name there) are allowed, such stupidity will reign.
So in that sense what would be shocking would be to find a thoughtful discussion on the merits of the article or situation at hand, not that you can quote idiots all night.
Ahh honey, I never mince words, not when I can quote them exactly. If you don't like what you said, it sure ain't my fault you said it. Something about hoisting and petard comes to mind. And this is very deadly and very serious American politics. And we play that game for keeps, because if we lose, we lose forever. Last best hope of humanity and all.
And I'm sure you can't even imagine this stuff. Are there people, in mass, gathered praying (and fervently I might add) for the death of the Prime Minister? Cause we have that here.
Do you have a group of people in your country, large enough to constituent a political movement on its own who thinks that nuclear weapons were given to them by god to deliver unto you nation the rest of the world for Christ? Cause we do. (Oh yeah, and not a minor point, we have nuclear weapons and we have used them. Twice. Don't doubt the USA.)
And we have had lots, and lots of morons who dismiss these people, who neglect them, who ignore them, and every single time they do, they get their ass handed to them on a silver platter.
Last time a bunch of people ignored them, those people got an anti-gay marriage deal, not just put into law, but put into the State Constitution. Not a minor deal. And not just any state constitution, the State Constitution of the State of California, one of the most liberal states in the Union.
And, for the record. One. This is American politics, if you are not American, your opinion is just that. And not important. Second. This is the internet. If you write something for public consumption, you best be able to defend it.
Because what I wrote in response to you was not wrong, it was dead on. You don't know these people I do. They are as serious as a heart attack twenty miles from the closest person, and a hundred miles from the closest clinic. In other words, they are absolutely toxic and poison, and deadly to the American system. I don't kid about them. Neither should you.
You assumed what I quoted to be about the original topic, my sentence "And these are the kind of people that watch letterman and believe every word." Was about the quote I quoted. IMO I believe that the general POV of letterman watchers to be of the quote that I quoted on the grounds that lettermen is both boring, unfunny and retarded himself.
I'm sorry I'm not american to be able to have a personal opinion about something happening there, how foolish of me to try.
Also the fact that you felt so inclined to correct me speaks volumes.
Your right, it does. I live here. It matters a lot. And, again, I don't want to discount them or play them off, even Laura will agree that these are not the people watching and listening to Dave.
!!!!!!!!!!!! ok just to clarify. you honestly believe that people with this opinion...
QuoteWow, this is unbelievable. These deviants are held up and glorified and then put into positions of governance! These creatures should be exiled. Amazing that this he/she/it changes their gender and then parades it in front of everyone. Just goes to show that these creatures are sick and are really not interested in what they profess and that their aim is to shove it in everyone's face and demand that they be accepted as normal-which frankly is as far from normal as possible.
...don't watch the letterman show?
I know a lot of different kinds of people watch letterman but without looking at stats I'm still pretty sure there are a lettermen viewers with this opinion
(The one I quoted above^^^).
OH wait that's right I don't live in america so what would I know.
Jon Stewart has a nightly show as well, and it's a hell of a lot funnier than David Letterman ever was. You should see how he mocks Glen Beck, oh my gawd it's awesome. Having never seen glen beck, I actually checked him out after seeing one of Stewarts parodies and...there wasn't much difference.
Quote from: Muffin on January 10, 2010, 03:00:05 AM
!!!!!!!!!!!! ok just to clarify. you honestly believe that people with this opinion...
...don't watch the letterman show?
I know a lot of different kinds of people watch letterman but without looking at stats I'm still pretty sure there are a lettermen viewers with this opinion
(The one I quoted above^^^).
OH wait that's right I don't live in america so what would I know.
tekla is right that the religious crowd who has no stomach for "sexual deviance" also has no stomach for Letterman
and you are right if you are saying that there are a lot of people who consider us "deviants" who never set foot either in a church or a political rally.
I would also point out that tekla has a Californian's (San Fransican's?) view of those "dangerous" religious folks which isn't entirely accurate (more so of the activists than of the average joe but even then it's overstated) but this ain't the thread to bang my head against that particular wall again.
In any case, I think you are talking past each other because of the fundamental mistake often displayed of thinking that the ONLY reason people hate us is that they are religious.
'Taint so.
(but technically, when tekla says the religious folks don't like Letterman that's largely true)
Post Merge: January 10, 2010, 04:47:57 AM
Quote from: Becca on January 10, 2010, 04:21:30 AM
Jon Stewart has a nightly show as well, and it's a hell of a lot funnier than David Letterman ever was. You should see how he mocks Glen Beck, oh my gawd it's awesome. Having never seen glen beck, I actually checked him out after seeing one of Stewarts parodies and...there wasn't much difference.
You have to watch a lot of Beck to see what people like about him (including me).
Now, if you don't share ANY of his political points of view you still won't like him BUT just watching any one episode or segment won't give you a full picture.
I've seen him do many wonderful thoughtful interviews (the one he did with Jon Huntsman recently of the Cancer Hospitals was better than most any of your traditional interview shows do - looked like something from Dick Cavett or Tom Snyder.
I've seem him do what can only be seen as Stewart-type comedy and do it well (although as with Stewart, if you are the butt of the joke you don't like it so well)
I've seen him do the weepy emotional shtick which personally I think makes him too easy a target for his critics but he's also very good at self-mockery on that point.
He does a couple of different stage shows (one is a Christmas thing) that are well done.
He DOES have flaws which I don't like - I think he is too heavy handed about religion sometimes, I think he should NEVER yell as he does on the radio sometimes (leave that for that moron Michael Savage who deserves all the flack Beck takes)
but Bottom line, if Beck were on the left, the same folks who criticize his show now would like him BETTEr than Stewart or anyone else currently doind similar stuff on the left. (and right wingers would hate him of course)
Those who don't like Beck dislike his positions far more than his shtick.
(and of those, probably a significant majority don't even know what his positions are - it's enough that he's on the right)
Letterman has had his shot at Amanda and has moved on to other easy one liners. The only agenda he had was a few chuckles at Obama's expense. but hey making jokes is his job. pushing for social change is not.
The real problem is the folks who promote hate tword those that they do not know.
It is far to easy to demonize someone or some group, rather then take the time to learn just who they are.
I kind of like Letterman, actually. I mean, he's as lame at times as any other comedian, but I don't see how anyone could say he's terribly political. Sure, he knocks Obama -- just like he knocked W, Clinton, H.W., and Reagan before. But he mostly does it in an offbeat, absurdist manner, and most of his stuff isn't political at all. What's the politics in dropping a bucket of paint off of a building? Oh, yeah, one other thing: the conservative wingnuts have been boycotting Letterman since the Palin incident last June. So ... there goes that theory.
But, really, why is it such a big deal? You don't understand the demographics of the viewership of a show in a country you don't even live in. So what? Consider yourself edified.
(And, yes, I think Jon Stewart's show is a lot funnier. Also, waaaaaaay more political. But that's okay, 'cause he's a lefty, and his opinions are correct, right?)
I watch Beck and John Stewart.
Beck because I want to be in the know when the right plans on starting the next American civil war, and Stewart for a laugh.
They are both entertaining and highly political. But if I was grading them on entertainment value alone I would have to say Stweart is much more entertaining.
jmho
I agree with Tekla. She is totally correct that Prop 8 was manipulated into our Constitution by religious people and the Mormon and Catholic churches. Now it seems certain that Prop 8 was enacted illegally by election fraud. One doesn't have to be from liberal San Francisco to see this. My area 120 miles south is quite conservative. I once was too until I finally woke up to the fact that I was massively lied to and manipulated by the these people. They are anti-LBGT, anti-education, anti-logic and against any belief system except the modern incarnation of what used to be Christianity.
Instead, I have educated myself in a wide spectrum of information and by my understanding, liberals are closer to our interests by far. The conservatives fool ordinary people to support corporations and extremists while these poor people are their victims too.
I loved the you tube video of Beck being photographed for his crying pictures. He is a phony and an instigator doing the tactic of telling a lie between two truths. He is no better than a person screaming fire in a crowded theater.
Letterman is an ignorant fool who will say anything if he gets a laugh. What impresses me about this episode is that it raised the issue of transsexuality to even more national attention. The result is that the opposition now has us even more in their cross hairs. I have read op ed pieces on conservative sites that are downright scary since this has come to light.
Maggie
Quote
I loved the you tube video of Beck being photographed for his crying pictures. He is a phony and an instigator doing the tactic of telling a lie between two truths. He is no better than a person screaming fire in a crowded theater.
you loved the youtube video of a person being photographed being subjected to the same routine devices to produce on-camera tears that are employed routinely in the industry to produce that effect...
Employed by the way because the people the photo shoot was for - a liberal newsmagazine - WANTED a "crying shot"?
Why, exactly?
Are you so ...no, I won't choose a word here because I don't want to be insulting - are you REALLY saying that it proves Beck is more dishonest because they faked tears for a photograph?
Seriously???????
Sure, you can think all manner of evil about Beck if you want but THAT is your evidence?
Laura,
I don't spend much time remembering all the plethora of things that Beck did. I do recall him joking about killing Nancy Pelosi by poison. He is far too much of a buffoon to waste any discussion on, the Jerry Springer of political journalists. I'll tell you what, let's let you win this one. He is the salt of the earth and the protector of American corporate democracy. Mind if we drop it now?
Kay
He is the salt of the earth and the protector of American corporate democracy.
You forgot ruggedly handsome.
I'm just going to go ahead and say that Tekla is right. There's not much difference between the redneck muslims who kill people and the redneck americans who, for the most part, don't - currently. Ours are just lazier and less willing to sack up and do what they believe in.
In case you missed it, the man who walked up to an abortion doctor in a crowded lobby and shot him in the face is being allowed to argue that it was"voluntary manslaughter" (AKA "Justifiable Homicide") versus premeditated murder 1. 5 year sentence, versus death/life in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_abortion_shooting_trial;_ylt=AkoLgScNuWdzQ1XEReyWRBYUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTNmb3M3Ym5jBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTEyL3VzX2Fib3J0aW9uX3Nob290aW5nX3RyaWFsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3NvbWVmZWFya2Fucg-- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_abortion_shooting_trial;_ylt=AkoLgScNuWdzQ1XEReyWRBYUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTNmb3M3Ym5jBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTEyL3VzX2Fib3J0aW9uX3Nob290aW5nX3RyaWFsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3NvbWVmZWFya2Fucg--)
Quote from: Becca on January 10, 2010, 04:21:30 AM
Jon Stewart has a nightly show as well, and it's a hell of a lot funnier than David Letterman ever was. You should see how he mocks Glen Beck, oh my gawd it's awesome. Having never seen glen beck, I actually checked him out after seeing one of Stewarts parodies and...there wasn't much difference.
Beck is self-parodying. Just watch about a paragraph of his show and you know all there is to know. He's funny regardless.
Quote from: Maggie Kay on January 11, 2010, 11:05:40 PM
Laura,
I don't spend much time remembering all the plethora of things that Beck did. I do recall him joking about killing Nancy Pelosi by poison. He is far too much of a buffoon to waste any discussion on, the Jerry Springer of political journalists. I'll tell you what, let's let you win this one. He is the salt of the earth and the protector of American corporate democracy. Mind if we drop it now?
Kay
I wasn't even trying to change your mind about Beck - I'm pretty sure I'm the only one hear that doesn't think he's raving loon or a meglomaniac or both.
I just thought the particular instance you referenced was a classic example of what happens on line - on both sides - all the time.
To go back to a previous incident - openly wishing Limbaugh dead is perfectly understandable...obliquely referring to Obama's "days being short" is an outrage.
Or vice versa if you are on the other side.
the point wasn't "Beck is a saint" - the point was "Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that with ALL the MULTITUDE of ways one can go after Beck, that ANYone thinks it's a good idea to use a photo shoot to prove Beck can cry on command?"
And yet, as ridiculous as that concept is, it floated all through the left-wing net blogosphere as if it were a perfectly reasonable concept.
It's what political discourse has sunk to in this country.
First rule of acting is: Once you learn to fake sincerity, the rest comes easy. To the degree that people like Glenn and Rush are not reporters, not journalists, not analysts, but entertainers, then anything suspect about them is just doin' what comes naturally. Fakin' it, is what they do. As Glenn himself said in a New York Times interview: "if you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot."
Quote from: tekla on January 12, 2010, 01:40:53 AM
First rule of acting is: Once you learn to fake sincerity, the rest comes easy. To the degree that people like Glenn and Rush are not reporters, not journalists, not analysts, but entertainers, then anything suspect about them is just doin' what comes naturally. Fakin' it, is what they do. As Glenn himself said in a New York Times interview: "if you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot."
I wonder if they actually care about what is ranted about... I mean they're ranting about the stupidest BS imaginable...
But are they faking most of it just to make a buck? I remember he was saying to like... Not buy gold or something, and was then on a commercial about buying gold from a company. Almost seems more like an attention whore than a partisan jerk. Either way, I hate him... Still.
I remember he was saying to like... Not buy gold or something, and was then on a commercial about buying gold from a company.
I think if you check, you'll find the rant is about dumping dollars for gold, then comes the gold commercial. By the way, had you put everything into gold in 2000 you'd be pretty rich today. It was $300 an ounce in 2000, today it was selling for $1152.30.
Laura,
I wasn't going to do this but I have some free time and I have questions about your views on LBGT rights.
One of the things I can't understand is why you defend Beck. You said that you watch him a lot. So you must be familiar with his views on LBGT.
He demonstrates that he is against us by homophobic mocking of Barney Frank. I have no problem with him being conservative and even being a comedian but he lets his bigotry show. Now, why do you want us to believe that he is worth watching? SHould we feel that this kind of mocking is justified? Do we deserve it?
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/31/beck_makes_gay_jokes_about_barney_frank.php (http://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/31/beck_makes_gay_jokes_about_barney_frank.php)
Or his position on Gay Marriage that it's really about "going into churches and attacking churches... Then you also have to go into the schools."
http://foxattacks.com/blog/?p=1264 (http://foxattacks.com/blog/?p=1264)
So he promotes keeping many of us from marrying the person we love. I am legally female, I cannot marry another woman if my wife dies or we divorce. It took us weeks to prove to the insurance companies that we are legally married after Prop 8. Beck supported Prop 8.
Why would you want to defend someone who is against your rights?
What about this interchange between Beck and Dobson of Focus on the Family:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/commentator-glen-beck-learns-not-to-cross-the-dobson/ (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/commentator-glen-beck-learns-not-to-cross-the-dobson/)
Dobson is one of the most vocal Anti-gay pastors and Beck sucked up to him even when Dobson was clearly lying.
Again, another example of Beck siding with our enemies. He is very influential and does affect the electorate to make our struggle harder to win.
Why do you support such a person?
Maggie
Quote from: tekla on January 12, 2010, 01:40:53 AM
First rule of acting is: Once you learn to fake sincerity, the rest comes easy. To the degree that people like Glenn and Rush are not reporters, not journalists, not analysts, but entertainers, then anything suspect about them is just doin' what comes naturally. Fakin' it, is what they do. As Glenn himself said in a New York Times interview: "if you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot."
As long as you think of Chris Matthews the same thing (on that score) you think of Bill O'Reilly....
As long as you think of Olberman the same as you think of Beck...
As long as you think of Bill Mahr what you think of Ann coulter...
(and so forth)
then you will get no argument from me.
The ones that get me are the one who think Olberman and Michael Moore and the rest are founts of wisdom and the only idiotic, two-faced, self serving blowhards are on the right.
Quote
Almost seems more like an attention whore than a partisan jerk. Either way, I hate him...
Ditto.
(By the way, I don't include Stewart in the above simply because Stewart is the most clear of all that he's doing entertainment. while Beck admits it to a degree he does attempt a level of sincerity that Stewart never has to my knowledge)
When left wing mouthpieces loudly and repeatedly suggest that right wingers should be put to death, deported, tortured, and denied civil rights, you can compare the two. Not random ->-bleeped-<- bloggers on the internet, multi-million dollar media stars.
If you notice the ones that shout the loudest get the coverage, or as my Dad use to say "The squeaky wheel gets the greats".
As long as they shout louder than we do, they will have the coverage and thus influence more minds.
Janet
Bill Mahar and Jon Stewart* are entertainers, stand-ups, much like Lewis Black, that does not mean that on occasion they veer dangerously close to the truth, but we do live in an age where pretty much comedy is the only way to do social critiques also. Of all of them I like Lewis Black the best, but he pretty much only does stand-up, so he is the least censored and scripted out of all of them.
Most of the other ones, the NBCCBSABC junk, they are even entertaining, they are just news readers, people who look good with good hair, and not much more, and what is covered on such programs has been bought and paid for not by liberals or by conservatives, but by large multi-national corporations who are only looking out for number one. And number one ain't you. You ain't even number two - as Frank Zappa wisely pointed out.
If you want real news (but you're not going to like it on many accounts, not the least of which is the truth is going to make you puke) watch Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. She does not glam up, she is very plain looking, and doesn't care. She never raised her voice, she speaks in a monotone, which is best for what she does, which is report facts, not talking points. And she not only does stuff in depth, she's not against using 50 of her 60 minutes to tell one story, for things like health care she did that for a week, including listing off which congresspeople got how much money from which health care industry lobbyists and extensive interviews with a guy who's previous job was the head of corporate communications at CIGNA. Very interesting what he said about what the insurance companies were going to do. You can watch it - it was filmed before the debate started, and how odd, he is spot-on. She spent the last two nights doing coverage of the rise of right wing militias in the past year.
The show runs on the Pacifica System, and is broadcast on several PBS stations, but I bet where you are the only way you're going to see her in the South is on the webcasts and such.
* and to the best of my knowledge, they never deny that.
Quote from: Laura91 on January 12, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
The way I see it, it doesn't matter if they are left, right, independent, etc, they all stink. The same goes for the politicians.
Now here's a position I can endorse, lol.
Post Merge: January 12, 2010, 10:55:32 PM
Quote from: Autumn on January 12, 2010, 11:16:05 PM
When left wing mouthpieces loudly and repeatedly suggest that right wingers should be put to death, deported, tortured, and denied civil rights, you can compare the two. Not random ->-bleeped-<- bloggers on the internet, multi-million dollar media stars.
I know better than to ask but - who exactly has Beck or Rush or whoever called for executing, torturing, etc...apart from Terrorists?
Post Merge: January 12, 2010, 11:59:06 PM
QuoteBill Mahar and Jon Stewart* are entertainers
Mahar defines himself as a comedian but he certainly seems to take himself and his opinions damned seriously.
He's not joking when he's on Larry King telling you how screwed up the right wing is.
He's not joking when he's on Larry King telling you how screwed up the right wing is.c
Maybe it's because they are. Just a thought. But like I said above, I draw a very real distinction between the old line conservatives, and the neo-cons and the Xian Right. The old country club, business class I at least understand where they are coming from. And, despite the lip service given to the rest, as best as I can tell the Republican Party is still a collection of millionaires and rich guys one one hand, and total idiots on the other. As I said, at least I know why the millionaires and rich guys are hanging out there.
Quote from: tekla on January 13, 2010, 12:17:26 AM
He's not joking when he's on Larry King telling you how screwed up the right wing is.c
Maybe it's because they are. Just a thought. But like I said above, I draw a very real distinction between the old line conservatives, and the neo-cons and the Xian Right. The old country club, business class I at least understand where they are coming from. And, despite the lip service given to the rest, as best as I can tell the Republican Party is still a collection of millionaires and rich guys one one hand, and total idiots on the other. As I said, at least I know why the millionaires and rich guys are hanging out there.
Surely you aren't under the illusion that there are no rich guys who are Democrats?
That's a massive myth. In fact, there's as much or more major wealth in the Dem camp.
For just one example - take a look at Cokely's Washington fund raiser tonight. All the sponsors and hosts were....big Pharma and related interests.
the VERY people that Obama et al told us that Health Care Reform was supposed to be saving us from!Seriously, the "party of the rich" canard is about as related to the real world of today as me calling the Democrats the party of segregation.
Bill Maher may define himself as a comedian but he's not funny.
Quote from: Jen on January 13, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Bill Maher may define himself as a comedian but he's not funny.
Except in Religulous.
we do live in an age where pretty much comedy is the only way to do social critiques also.
And exactly which age was it that was all that different in that regard? ;)
--
Seriously, the "party of the rich" canard is about as related to the real world of today as me calling the Democrats the party of segregation.
Wrong. The Republicans are still the party of the rich:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople-press.org%2Freports%2Fimages%2F517-24.gif&hash=e455dde7acd077a9b36cad80ef97b72595f81e35)
source (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1516)
--
Bill Maher may define himself as a comedian but he's not funny.
I define him as a jerk.
The real truth is simple, but its really only a game adults get to play. I have always thought that real political maturity comes from knowing the moment that you realize that it's not about Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Right or Left, but simply about right and wrong.
Because this is the simple and true fact.
You are delusional if you think that the American public determines one f#$king sentence of government policy. Argue all you want, you are wasting your breath because you truly don't count. Its about oil and money. The real power brokers just throw you bones to fight over so you think you are important (gay rights, crappy health care, kill the Muslims, Fox News, MSM etc) They laugh at Obama Sucks/Republicans Suck rhetoric because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING and keeps you from THINKING about what's really going on.*
We've been having this knock-down drag out fight over gay marriage that affects how many? A very few? But when it came to the largest bailout in the history of bailouts, well political campaigns were suspended, candidates rushed back, to all vote for this, without as much debate as your average group of five would have about what kind of pizza to order. And that was BOTH campaigns. That was BOTH parties. That was the right and the 'left'. They screwed you to the wall for the rich boys and the rich got what they wanted, which was to dump all this bad paper on you, and you can't even get treatment in a public hospital for a paper cut without paying up front, or having insurance, or being on welfare. Pretty funny eh?
* - most of this was written by a friend of mine on FARK, and I could not write it any better, so I'm using it.
Quote from: tekla on January 14, 2010, 04:07:47 AM
The real truth is simple, but its really only a game adults get to play. I have always thought that real political maturity comes from knowing the moment that you realize that it's not about Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Right or Left, but simply about right and wrong.
Because this is the simple and true fact.
You are delusional if you think that the American public determines one f#$king sentence of government policy. Argue all you want, you are wasting your breath because you truly don't count. Its about oil and money. The real power brokers just throw you bones to fight over so you think you are important (gay rights, crappy health care, kill the Muslims, Fox News, MSM etc) They laugh at Obama Sucks/Republicans Suck rhetoric because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING and keeps you from THINKING about what's really going on.*
We've been having this knock-down drag out fight over gay marriage that affects how many? A very few? But when it came to the largest bailout in the history of bailouts, well political campaigns were suspended, candidates rushed back, to all vote for this, without as much debate as your average group of five would have about what kind of pizza to order. And that was BOTH campaigns. That was BOTH parties. That was the right and the 'left'. They screwed you to the wall for the rich boys and the rich got what they wanted, which was to dump all this bad paper on you, and you can't even get treatment in a public hospital for a paper cut without paying up front, or having insurance, or being on welfare. Pretty funny eh?
* - most of this was written by a friend of mine on FARK, and I could not write it any better, so I'm using it.
Kat,
You have pointed out the elephant in the room. We cannot depend on elections because they are clearly rigged, our economy is in tatters, we have no manufacturing base, we will have a much poorer health care at even higher cost,our state governments are going bankrupt, local police budgets are being slashed while robberies skyrocket and we are buried in personal and national debt. The major engine of the economy is Finance instead of manufacturing.
Who did this? Both parties and both parties continue to do it. We are screwed and I only hope that most people don't figure it out because it will be horrible when they do.
Maggie
Quote from: Kara-Xen on January 13, 2010, 06:50:50 PM
Except in Religulous.
I haven't seen it, but I do think that the irony of a dogmatic proselytizing atheist has potential for some laughs, however unintentional.
Post Merge: January 14, 2010, 09:24:12 AM
Yep both parties can be held accountable for the bumpy ride ahead of us, though this last administration which decided we should fight two wars while reducing taxes(!) and figured they should deregulate aspects of Wall St. that needed more policing if anything while they were mucking about... Omg!
Oh well if you have to go out, ya might as well do it in spectacular fashion, right? We have so many mind-boggling challenges ahead, all of which seem to be converging toward an epic collision this decade. It should be fascinating to watch!
If you really want to be depressed, watch this:
www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse)
I am a pretty skeptical person, but I really can't find much fault in anything he presents there, even though I call it the "Chicken Little" video.
Sometimes I wonder if the attacks on LBGT people in the media and by the conservatives are part of the grand plan to divert attention from the impending crash that is sure to come. As for the liberals, they seem to be in chaos and are too afraid to stand up for their principles. It is almost like GW is still in power.
Maggie
Superficial hot button topics like gay rights, god, abortion, etc. have always been used as tactics to divert attention from real issues, but I honestly wonder if many in Washington have an awareness of how dire the situation is. Given how they have handled the current economic crisis, you have to assume the majority don't, I think.
I dunno I find the lack of change the Dems have affected with a supermajority in congress and contol of the White House disturbing. There is no way to rant about the situation because there is just too much ground to cover... Lol
Quote from: Alyssa M. on January 14, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
we do live in an age where pretty much comedy is the only way to do social critiques also.
And exactly which age was it that was all that different in that regard? ;)
--
Seriously, the "party of the rich" canard is about as related to the real world of today as me calling the Democrats the party of segregation.
Wrong. The Republicans are still the party of the rich:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople-press.org%2Freports%2Fimages%2F517-24.gif&hash=e455dde7acd077a9b36cad80ef97b72595f81e35)
source (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1516)
According to your own source, in the top Quintile the spread between Republicans and Dems is 2% - almost certainly within the margin of error.
In the second Quintile, the two are tied.
So among those making $65K or more per year they are essentially in a dead heat.
With all due respect, Your source doesn't refute my claim.
What it really says is the Republican Party last time around was so messed up that they couldn't even get rich people to vote for them.
Of course, there last night with noted 'gotcha' journalist Glenn Beck (just like Katie Couric, but less 'perky'), Sara Palin, when asked a super unfair question like "Who is your favorite Founding Father" answered "All of them." You can't make that stuff up.
Though I'll stick with my theory that in the real halls of power none of this matters. Oil and money matter. Corporate needs dictate real policy.
Quote from: tekla on January 14, 2010, 04:33:07 PM
Sara Palin, when asked a super unfair question like "Who is your favorite Founding Father" answered "All of them."
I don't mean to sound unpatriotic, but I don't see what the big woop is about those guys. They were slave owners and more than half of them weren't even christians. Plus, if they had lost the war, they would have been considered terrorists.
It's time for a little rant.
[rant]I can't stant the tweedledee/tweedledum argument. It drives me up the bloody wall. Every time I hear a liberal say, "oh, who cares, they're all just the same," I want to throw something. They're not the same. Yes, they are both centrist by comparison to some of the extremes of the last hundred years, and not nearly as pernicious (at least today, to their own people -- even at his worst, Bush had nothing on Pol Pot; Guantanamo is not Auschwitz. But there's a huge difference. And it has, basically, to do with being basically responsible adults.
I hear nothing from the right side of the aisle that's not accompanied by some platitude about "protecting the taxpayer." Well, I'm a taxpayer, and I want to be "protected" by having decent cops, schools, environmental protections, consumer safety regulations, courts, military, etc. Now, at present, I'm in the bottom of that income distribution, but I'll probably make well over the average (and way over the median) in my lifetime, so I'll be paying more than my fair share. And it's WORTH IT. It's worth it for decent roads, advancements in medical research, incredible discoveries like the ones that came out of Hubble (that one cost about $5 per person living in the U.S. -- thanks for chipping in, everyone), for Social Security should I be injured and unable to work, for National Parks and Forests and Seashores and Historic Sites, and so much more. It's a bloody bargain. Sure, there's a lot of waste, but there's a lot that's spent, pooled together, better than I could ever spend it myself. I can't build and maintain the ten inches of interstate highway* by myself.
So the question is, who is acting to make that happen? For the last 20 years, at least, it sure as hell hasn't been the Republicans. No, it's been a tax cut mantra all the time -- likely for some of the reasons Tekla mentions, summed up in the phrase, "Starve the Beast."
The Democrats are screwed up. They are politicians, and they get into power, and many become corrupt. Just like everywhere else on the planet for the entire history of humanity. But by and large, they've made an effort to govern. But they can't, much of the time, and that's because the Republicans have been, since 1995 at least, have been making a serious effort not to govern. And it's a helluva lot easier to impede good governance than to effect it. Especially when you only need 41 votes out of 100, potentially from Senators representing as few 10% of all Americans.
So, yeah, the Democrats are corporate whores. Do you think you can do anything to change that? Does it make a difference? If not, forget about it and worry about something that you can change. Sure, it's incremental a lot of the time, but integrate increments over time, and you get real change. If you don't believe that, try imagine being a black woman as Secretary of State, or a black man as President 50 years ago. Yes, things change.
But any time I hear someone complain that the Democrats aren't doing enough, that the health care bill is screwed up, that we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on and on and on, I want to pull my hair out and smash my head against a wall. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY AREN'T?!!!! HINT: LOOK ACROSS THE AISLE!!!!!
tl;dr version: incremental change is awesome if it contiues over time, and Republicans don't need to be in control to screw things up.
[/rant]
Okay, I'm done now. I don't really care if that was coherent. Like I said: rant.
*10 inches multiplied by the U.S. population = the total length of Interstate Highway System, about 50,000 miles
Well what little governance we get - which isn't much - tends to be democratic, because as you state, it's a helluva lot easier to impede good governance than to effect it. But the Health Care debate is a pretty good example that a couple of corporations with a spare hundred million or so laying around can profoundly shift the debate to the point that the real issues, and the basic answers are not even brought up. And, it's my guess (and I thought it would happen this time, but hope springs eternal) is that we'll get national health when all the other huge corporations and players in the business community get together to over-rule the health/Pharma/insurance companies because they (business) can't continue to support the status quo because it's making them less competitive.
The big things now are eliminating medical history as a basis for providing coverage or changing rates. I think that those alone will make a big difference in my life and feeling of security. There's plenty more that would be nice, but those alone would be a huge improvement.
We already have a system in place, it's called MediCare, and to begin with you just need to eliminate the age restrictions and make it possible for those that do not have insurance to get into that plan. As time goes on I'm sure lots of people in more marginal jobs with more marginal plans would drift that way, just like executives, rich people, and unions and other groups (which have a capacity to self-insure) will keep the real good policies, but we at least would have everyone covered.
Well, yeah, but I don't see that happening any time soon, so I'll take this for now. I don't really care who is providing insurance, as long as I can get it and not have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because I contract some perfectly treatable disease or sustain a perfectly treatable injury.
I can see that you have a ton of passion about everything you said, Alyssa. I really do wish I shared your optimism. But I'm sorry, I just can't be satisfied with incremental change after watching everything get turned upside down in eight short years.
I am utterly terrified of another Republican regime and I am just so completely frustrated with the Democrats for not tipping the balance far enough while they had the chance.
And to clarify, because I am sure I wasn't clear, when I said both parties can share the blame for the inflation that is coming, I didn't mean recently. I meant that every president since FDR has done things to make matters worse on that front- a whole other thing to blah blah blah about.
Anyway, sorry if I made you mad, Alyssa. I didn't mean it! /hugs?
Well on a number of fronts there are differences, but on the real big topics, the ones that don't even seem to be debated - a trillion dollars for defense this year, a lot of it for two wars that the public does not seem to support or understand, that stuff does not really get debated, just passed. And passed by both sides.
The bailout of the banks, they just handed out checks. No oversight, no real rules, no benchmarks for performance. Nuttin. Passed by both sides.
Where are these debates - outside of the guys I work with, and no one is listening to us? Where is the news? We got more coverage of what Carrie Prejean was thinking (or not thinking, she is, after all, nothing more than a beauty pageant winner, not exactly Nobel Prize territory) then what the Congress was debating.
With all the debate over health care I bet the fact that McGuire took steroids (and who if they had even two brain cells to run things through didn't know that? Really. It's like saying 'rain is wet.') got more coverage this last week.
That in terms of a lot of basic governance there is a lot of difference, but at the very top, where the real policy is made, they are not talking about ideology, or party, they are talking about balance sheets and bottom lines. And they really prefer that we not notice.
And that's the real point about Amanda. People ought to be far more worried about her world view, but all anyone can think of is the genitals. It's pretty sick stuff really.
No problem, Jen. It's hardly just you, and it's just a rant, and like I said, I'm optimistic. And I've had a really good week. So it's hard to be too down. :)
And Tekla, that's all true (well, in broad strokes; I might have some quibbles on the details), but I don't expect that stuff to change fundamentally in my lifetime. I notice it, but I can live a good life anyway and leave the world a better place than I found it. Or at the very least, not do too much harm as I pass through.
Quote from: tekla on January 14, 2010, 11:33:26 PM
And that's the real point about Amanda. People ought to be far more worried about her world view, but all anyone can think of is the genitals. It's pretty sick stuff really.
Totes.
Quote from: tekla on January 14, 2010, 04:33:07 PM
What it really says is the Republican Party last time around was so messed up that they couldn't even get rich people to vote for them.
One thing is absolutely certain - the GOP has been so messed up for the last six years (minimum, like 10) previous to the last election that they didn't deserve anyone's support.
for the left, the GOP neither says nor does anything good, for the right, they often say the right things but almost never DO them.
Not since Gingrich got the boot (for, despite the pretense, actually doing what the GOP claims it wants to do) really.
And if they can't take advantage of the current situation to regain power, they will have proved that they are so far gone they've learned nothing from the ass kicking they got.
Post Merge: January 15, 2010, 12:30:21 AM
QuoteThe bailout of the banks, they just handed out checks. No oversight, no real rules, no benchmarks for performance. Nuttin. Passed by both sides.
Where are these debates - ...Where is the news?
Ummmm....on the Glenn Beck Show, for one.
He has ripped on both sides for the whole course of the "crisis" and the aftermath.
There was one Monday program where he apparently got some bad info over the weekend and came in with a wrong opinion but on that very show he had a guest that corrected him....but otherwise he's said exactly what you just said about the bank thing.
He also said that IF the U.S. wasn't going to commit to a clear win in Afghanistan that we should simply get out and wash our hands of it and quit wasting blood and treasure - not exactly your position but definitely discussion of the issue.
Post Merge: January 15, 2010, 01:40:02 AM
Quote from: Becca on January 14, 2010, 09:12:31 PM
I don't mean to sound unpatriotic, but I don't see what the big woop is about those guys. They were slave owners and more than half of them weren't even christians. Plus, if they had lost the war, they would have been considered terrorists.
Not all of them - or even most - were slave owners and you've been lied to about the Christianity thing. Of the famous names you have heard, it's pretty firmly established that three were not textbook Christians -
Paine was an atheist, Franklin was a vague sort of agnostic and Jefferson was a deist.
Yes, skeptics occasionally trot out isolated quotes from or about others which they use to prop up a very flimsy claim they were not believers, but they also hope you fail to notice the mountains of evidence from the same people to the contrary.
Back to the slavery point - there were almost no famous names involved in the Deceleration or Constitution from south of Virginia...maybe 3 or 4 out of the 55+ people you could put on that list.
Of the rest, pretty much only the Virginians owned slaves.
Washington freed all of his in his will, by the way.
And Jefferson gives us the following quote which addresses both his view of slavery, and his belief in the Christian God (though not the divinity of Jesus which is why he wasn't a Christian):
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan."Soiurce:
http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html (http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html)
Post Merge: January 15, 2010, 02:53:29 AM
QuoteSo the question is, who is acting to make that happen? For the last 20 years, at least, it sure as hell hasn't been the Republicans. No, it's been a tax cut mantra all the time -- likely for some of the reasons Tekla mentions, summed up in the phrase, "Starve the Beast."
I agree with a lot of what you say but I have a couple of quibbles:
First, the GOP does not and has never proposed tax cuts as a means to reduce government revenues (whatever the stump rhetoric about "putting money back in your pockets"
Rather, they Republicans hold toan economic theory that holds that tax cuts generate INCREASED revenues (up to a point) because it produces more taxable transactions in the economy. this was true when JFK radically cut taxes, it was proven again when revenues to the Federal government DOUBLED over the decade between Reagan's tax cuts and GHWB's agreement to raise taxes.
the GOP does screw up much, especially in the realm of poorly chosen spending - but the canard that the GOP proposed tax cuts caused budget problems by reducing revenues is just silly Democrat propagated mythology.
the other thing is that you mentioned one thing that was "worth the money" which most definitely is not - social security.
It's a massive Ponzi scheme which is ripping us all off in a major way with us having no ability to opt out. there does need to be some provision for disability for workers who lose there earning ability....but SS is screwed up in so many other ways that it's not worth what it costs us just to provide that one actual need.
for workers who DON'T become disabled, the amount of return they could have gotten on the money they were forced to pay in FICA taxes over their lifetime is staggering. Far FAR in excess of anything they could ever draw from SS (to say nothing of the poor soul who pays in for 50 years and drops dead a year after he qualifies for SS and that money simply disappears into the government's pocket).
In fact, that pretty much illustrates the problem with the services you mentioned - some of them MUST be done corporately by the government - security, national resources management, roads, etc....but far too often the government does that which DOESN'T have to be done by government and pretty much EVERY time they do, they spend way more than necessary to get way less done than possible.
Which by the way is exactly were that massively screwed up health care bill is going before it's even passed.
I, like you, am very much in favor of and very much willing to pay taxes for things only government can do well, no one on either side of the aisle is opposed to government taxing and spending to do those things - the differences of opinion arise from where one crosses from things only the government can do well and should be doing into the land of things the government shouldn't be doing because private interests can do it better and cheaper.
not everyone agrees where that line is.
Post Merge: January 15, 2010, 04:08:04 AM
Quote from: Jen on January 14, 2010, 11:20:22 PM
I can see that you have a ton of passion about everything you said, Alyssa. I really do wish I shared your optimism. But I'm sorry, I just can't be satisfied with incremental change after watching everything get turned upside down in eight short years.
I am utterly terrified of another Republican regime and I am just so completely frustrated with the Democrats for not tipping the balance far enough while they had the chance.
And to clarify, because I am sure I wasn't clear, when I said both parties can share the blame for the inflation that is coming, I didn't mean recently. I meant that every president since FDR has done things to make matters worse on that front- a whole other thing to blah blah blah about.
Anyway, sorry if I made you mad, Alyssa. I didn't mean it! /hugs?
I think the reason for your frustration is all about being TOO ambitious and focusing it all on one big play.
IF the Democrats were not so obsessed with nationalizing healthy care - and that's the real agenda here, they know full well if they can get ANY bill no matter how wacked into law, then it sets in motion an inevitable process which will lead to nationalized health care - they could have gotten dozens of things you and I would like to have seen done instead and with much less grief.
But they put all their eggs into that one big goal, and even if they succeed they have alianated so many people who wanted other things that they've lost their political capital. If it fails, they are that much worse off because they spent all that capital and got nothing at all.
Laying aside what one thinks of the current bill, if they had settled for a package of ACTUAL reforms (tort reform, interstate purchasing reform, the things Alyssa mentioned about pre-existing conditions and the like) they would have gotten widespread support (easily 8-12 GOP votes in the senate for instance) and had gained plenty of political capital.
then they could have used their super-majority and their political capital to do all sorts of things that the middle and the left would have rewrded them for.....ENDA and the DADT problem and so forth, among other things)
You would be sitting here tonight very happy at the dozen or so REAL advancements that would not only have been enacted but would also be things which would be pretty much impossible for Republicans to gather enough support to reverse (ENDA, for instance - such anti-discrimination laws NEVER get reversed once on the books).
But, as you said, they blew it. Like a drunk in a casino, they put it all on one number and spun the wheel, win or lose that's going to be there only play and we all lost something in the process - we lost all the other good they might have done
(of course, from a conservative/libertarian point of view like mine, we were also saved from them finding a lot of other things to screw up too so i can be more philosophical about it than you)
there is reason for optimism though, for both of us, when it comes to the issues important to our community -
The Dems have so very badly compounded the already massively screwed up economic situation (and will take it to another order of magnitude still of the health care bill passes) that when the GOP does regain power, they will have their hands so full trying to find a way out of that mess that they won't have much time to pass laws unfavorable to LGBT folks on the national level.
Quite possibly, they won't have time on the state level either because the dirty little secret (one of them) in the health care bil is that it contains massive unfunded mandates on the states (regarding the expansion of medicaid) which most of them don't have a prayer of affording.
That's not the atmosphere in which you take time to kick the "freaks" - you have to figure out how to survive.
ok, so that's not good news overall - but it does mean that the trans community should be more worried about whether the economy collapses altogether than whether or not the Moralists pull some anti-trans law out of their ear.
I agree with alot of your response to my last post. I just have to say that the Dems have done far less damage that the last admin, who were imo some of the worst stewards of the economy this country has seen. They were so fiscally irresponsible it is just mind-boggling.
I am not sure anything can be done to prevent a collapse tbh, esp once we start running out of cheap energy, and combine that with the economic fallout that will come from all this bailout and warring business, and with the Boomers beginning to retire , etc etc etc (it's a long list). My feeling is I'm just going to make some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Actually the Republican's are going to rue the day they pulled this super-majority deal. In the long run that's not just going to be dumb, it's retarded. They just changed the rules on such a fundamental level that they just made the US Congress function like the California State Assembly does, and that's pretty much not functioning at all. A majority is 50%+1, if everything needs 60% votes from here on out all you're going to get out of these clowns - not like they are doing all that much anyway - is proclamations of "National Vegetable Day" (in the interest of good taste I'll skip the Terri Schiavo birthday joke, though that's also a good example - along with in re Bush V. Gore of how messed up the system is. If you allow one time rulings and individual laws you just pretty much voided the concept that we are all under the law.)
And I don't think the last administration was fiscally irresponsible, that would imply that it all kind of happened by accident and incompetence. I think they systematically looted the national treasury and credit in the same way John Dillinger took out bank withdraws. They knew exactly what was going on. That was the plan.
And I don't think most of the Boomers are even going to get to retire, there is no money for that.
Oh I agree they knew what they were doing...
My first political guru - a crusty old Goldwater Girl - always told me that nothing in politics happens by accident, if it happens, you can be damn sure that someone planed it that way.
They were very consistent and predictable, even the "socialistic" bailout was exactly what you would expect from them- They exploited crises. Everytime one came up, they would find a way (however convoluted) to twist it into a reason to have the treasury start up the presses and print off a bajillion dollars for their supporters and friends. The audacity of lowering taxes (mostly for their friends and supporters) while they spent money at a blinding rate was just unbelievable.
They knew practically nobody understood how the economy works. Most people don't get that printing money out of thin air = inflation = essentially a tax on the value of their savings accounts. And I know most people don't get it b/c I had to explain it umpteen times to people, and I don't think any of them believed me anyway. All they knew is they had their "stimulus" check and they were happy.
Quote from: tekla on January 15, 2010, 12:26:16 PM
My first political guru - a crusty old Goldwater Girl - always told me that nothing in politics happens by accident, if it happens, you can be damn sure that someone planed it that way.
That's very true - but the Law of Unintended Consequences never sleeps either.
I don't buy that crap for a New York second, its pap they put out to fool people too stupid to know better. Did the people writing the drug laws in the 60s and 70s criminalizing something that is a medical issue more than anything else not realize that such laws would create an entirely new criminal class (who were guilty of nothing more than puffing some weed) with almost unlimited source of untraceable cash funding? Nah, they went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, U of Wisconsin, U of Cal, they had studied the history of prohibition, they knew better. Did the not understand that taking away the legal structure of regulation of financial markets that had existed since the Great Depression might cause instability? Nah, they went to the Wharton School of Finance, they for sure knew that. Did St. Ronnie (or at least his advisers) understand that funding and giving weapons to millitant Islam might eventually come back and bite them in the ass? Sure as sh*t they did. Blowback is not a new concept.
Did they not get that putting someone in charge of FEMA who had ZERO experience doing anything remotely like that (his previous job had been working with Arabian Horse Shows) might significantly impact the abilty of FEMA to respond? Nah, that was the point. As Grover Norquist (the 'Field Marshall' of the Bush Plan) once said: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Do you think he didn't know what he was doing, or how to do it? A BA and MBA from Harvard tells me he pretty knew EXACTLY what he was doing. And exactly what the results would be.
Is all this financial stuff - which is nothing more than the largest single transfer of wealth (both money and property) from the lowest classes to the richest classes - some sort of 'unintended' deal?
I guess they can't help it they're lucky.
I think SOME supposed "bad outcomes" were in fact the goal (of course then you have to take a second look at Beck's - and other's - allegations regarding the current administration and the Cloward/Plivin Strategy) but I also believe that a lot of smart people let their good intentions blind them to things they SHOULD know and I do think that some things involving human behavior are simply so complex that there are sometimes unanticipated "side effects"
Frankly, I don't give ANY of the "thinkers" credit for knowing every possible outcome of every possible choice they might make economically or policy wise.
(and by the way, I'm choosing not to engage the implication that it was all in the last decade that the financial rules were changed - it's not so but i don't have the passion to debate too deeply on the "who's fault was it" discussion because there's plenty of blame for almost everyone)
I saw quite enough of Glenn Beck the other night interviewing Sara when he did everything short of pulling it out, stroking it and splewing on her face.* EVEN she looked uncomfortable (and that's hard to do, I don't think she has any shame at all) - the fact that he did this in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty was akin to having Marylin Manson perform AntiChrist SuperStar at St. Peter's in Rome, on the Alter, on Sunday.
So, perhaps, that's not the best way to go.
Of course, given the greatest humanitarian tragedy in our lifetime happening in our hemisphere, that might have come up, but no.
I have, and do listen to him, have long before he even came on TV because personally I think mental illness is very funny (what choice do I have, I live in the state where St. Ronnie closed down most mental health facilities and turned entire sections of our major cities into living psycharactic out-patient clinics). But his 'analysis' is grade school at best, and at that, is dead wrong. Ask him why he's pushing gold so hard, it's not like he does not have a financial stake in this, as a matter of fact, the worst this nation does, the more money he makes. Is that your idea of a patriot?
* - Don't believe me? Watch it. If Sara was your GF, you'd have taken Glenn out back and beat him almost to death for this. Start at 1:20. It's creepy. Guys beating off in public bathrooms have more dignity. Watch her, she is so uncomfortable you'd think Ru Paul was showing her how to tuck.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130033 (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130033)
i don't have the passion to debate too deeply on the "who's fault was it"
Perhaps if you worked, and had a job, and payed taxes, you might. It's easy to sit back and criticize the 'welfare state' and then just go out and cash them checks ain't it? Look at if from my point of view. I pay those taxes, I work and I have invested a lot, that's my money they are playing with, what difference does it make to you? Really?
Quotei don't have the passion to debate too deeply on the "who's fault was it"
Perhaps if you worked, and had a job, and payed taxes, you might. It's easy to sit back and criticize the 'welfare state' and then just go out and cash them checks ain't it? Look at if from my point of view. I pay those taxes, I work and I have invested a lot, that's my money they are playing with, what difference does it make to you? Really?
A. because I don't now doesn't mean I never did or won't again.
B. the twisted logic that you employ here seems to make one wonder if the mental illness you like to watch wasn't contagious. the LEAST sensible thing to do is to be "riding the dole" and be opposed to it
C. I've not said or implied that i was against any sort of assistance to those in need - merely that I thought it was being mismanaged and that such assistance often produces unintended consiquences (as all things that complex do)
D. Anyone who tells me out of one side of their mouth that they "pay those taxes, I work and I have invested a lot, that's my money they are playing with" and then tells me in the next breath that they tend to support left of center politicians has pretty much confirmed to me that I can't take seriously anything else they might tell me about politics, economics or governance.
the Republicans often govern like retarded children and they certainly have it wrong on some social issues to a very troubling degree....but if we are just talking about "the government playing with my money" the current crop of Democrats (and the vast majority of all Democrats in the last 70+ years) are an order of magnitude or six WORSE.
This is kind of into the "well that's your opinion" stage, but this idea that Democrats "play with your money" more than Republicans is a misnomer imo. Regardless of which party is in power the money gets spent, the only difference is where it goes. In fact, over the last 30 years, not counting Obama's first year, the national debt to GDP ratio has gone up under Republicans and down under Democrats, and has gone up sharply under the Republican Presidents. So, would you rather money be spent on infrastructure, arts, and social programs etc., or defense and lining the pockets of the elite and super-rich?
Also- this is a simplified point about a very complex system- but I wish people saw that money tends to flow up, not down, through the economy. It's far more beneficial when you think of money as being the lifeblood of the economy to administer it to people who need it, who will spend it not sock it away. What's a billionaire going to do with another million dollars? Not spend it, that's what.
So, depending on the specifics, distributed wealth is not nearly as bad for the economy as you may think, imo. You can build in sufficient rewards for innovation and hard work while maintaining a strong middle class and control over poverty. And no country has ever done well with a weak middle class.
I know you're way outnumbered here Laura, so thank you for keeping your composure =). This is literally the first civil political discussion I've had in about ...seven years =/.. when there has actually been a dissenting view. Also, you sound more like a Libertarian than a Republican, tbh.
Quite a fascinating discussion of politics; right/left, conservative/liberal, etc., however it's gotten pretty far off from the OT of reactions to Amanda Simpson's appointment.
A gentle reminder from admin to stay on topic. You're welcome to start a new thread to continue the other discussion.
Thanks!
Z
Quote from: Jen on January 16, 2010, 01:45:53 AM
This is kind of into the "well that's your opinion" stage, but this idea that Democrats "play with your money" more than Republicans is a misnomer imo. Regardless of which party is in power the money gets spent, the only difference is where it goes. In fact, over the last 30 years, not counting Obama's first year, the national debt to GDP ratio has gone up under Republicans and down under Democrats, and has gone up sharply under the Republican Presidents.
There's a secret to that - where spending bills originate.
During the last 30 years, spending has gone down by that measure exactly one time - while Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House. that happened to be while Clinton was in office so he gets to brag about it but the correlation between the spending curve and who's in office correlates much better with Gingrich than with any president.
which is to be expected since Constitutionally spending originates in the House.
Quote
So, would you rather money be spent on infrastructure, arts, and social programs etc., or defense and lining the pockets of the elite and super-rich?
I reject the supposition that only the GOP lines the pockets of their buddies. the argument about defense vs. arts and social programs is a valid comparison, but both parties are equally guilty of funneling federal largess to their buddies. Corporate and otherwise.
Quote
Also- this is a simplified point about a very complex system- but I wish people saw that money tends to flow up, not down, through the economy. It's far more beneficial when you think of money as being the lifeblood of the economy to administer it to people who need it, who will spend it not sock it away. What's a billionaire going to do with another million dollars? Not spend it, that's what.
this too is a concept I reject. It's not demonstrated by past economic adjustments.
If you give me 10% money, I'll spend it and not save it, this is true and this does produce a measure of economic activity.
But if a Billionaire gets 10% more money he does NOT "sock it away" - he didn't get to be a billionaire by NOT making his money work for him. No, Ask any Billionaire how much cash he can put his hands on in the next hour - it ain't billions. Rather, his money is at work making him MORE MONEY (which is how he got to be a billionaire).
He will invest it - which puts major funds into the economy to generate economic activity
Or he'll spend it on his business, which ultimately puts money into the pockets of many employees of his companies and the secondary and tertiary (etc) suppliers he deals with.
All of which create multiple layers of economic activity (TAXABLE activities most of the time) and all that money eventually ends up in the hands of working people at the bottom.
True, this doesn't directly put any money in the hands of the unemployed, but otherwise, you get AT A MINIMUM the same economic influence you get from a "bottom up" strategy. I've seen compelling arguments that you get considerably more.
Plus, you have less chance of creating dependency.
I suspect there is an income level who's first instinct will be to sit on the money, but I don't think that's the billionaires any more than it is the poor. As a guess it's probably the folks in the 100-250k range. Though even they will "sock it away" by investing it in the market which DOES put dollars into the economy.
Quote
So, depending on the specifics, distributed wealth is not nearly as bad for the economy as you may think, imo.
No, I don't think that government distributing wealth is bad for the economy....I simply think it's the most inefficient way to help it. Government is immune to market forces so it is ham-handed about how it spends "its" money. It's not a question of whether it helps but whether it's the most efficent means of helping.
Plus, there's the whole "creating dependency" issue. One need only look at the socio-economic situation of the black community on the day the Great Society was passed and look at the socio-economic condition of the black community now to recognize that the best of intentions have created a massive dependency problem (2 of every 3 black children born today are born into ah single parent home - that's a stunning increase over what it was in the mid-60's)
Quote
You can build in sufficient rewards for innovation and hard work while maintaining a strong middle class and control over poverty. And no country has ever done well with a weak middle class.
No disagreement here. the question is what's the best way to do that?
Quote
I know you're way outnumbered here Laura, so thank you for keeping your composure =).
I'm learning. i knew I'd be way outnumbered which is why I try VERY hard to stay out of these threads but sometimes temptation gets to me.
Still, the effort to stay out hopefully restrains me from being as uncivil as i used to be.
QuoteThis is literally the first civil political discussion I've had in about ...seven years =/.. when there has actually been a dissenting view. Also, you sound more like a Libertarian than a Republican, tbh.
I am. I freely admit that on economic policy, the (professed!) views of Republicans are closer to mine, but I have very little faith in most of them to live up to their professions.
But once you get out of tax and spend and other economic policies, there's only a few other things I line up pretty well with them on. Probably about as many as I line up with the Democrats on...but it's a small number for either.
Post Merge: January 17, 2010, 01:34:23 AM
Quote from: Zythyra on January 16, 2010, 08:59:31 PM
Quite a fascinating discussion of politics; right/left, conservative/liberal, etc., however it's gotten pretty far off from the OT of reactions to Amanda Simpson's appointment.
A gentle reminder from admin to stay on topic. You're welcome to start a new thread to continue the other discussion.
Thanks!
Z
OOPS!
I take the posts as I come to them and didn't see this in time. I'll shut up now!