Part of the problem in American politics is that the various sides don't trust each other to properly represent themselves. To wit, what have you heard from the right wing about alleged "liberals" and their extremity? Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow (i.e., This Modern World)— Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! September 26, 2011 (via Daily Kos) —tweeted earlier today an excellent example of the progressive outlook on politics: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What it comes down to is the irony of the right wing—with all its rhetoric about Obama's black-power theology and the pathetic excuses that people aren't actually racist but, rather, so infuriated by a political stroke fantasy that they're willing to throw the racist kitchen sink at Obama—being the sector keeping the race question alive. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh accusing Obama— When you listen to Obama on a stump, when you listen to his nasty tone ... you listen to his name calling, you listen to the name calling, you listen to the class warfare, you hear his supporters with their racism charges, their thug language, who and what does it remind you of? I'll tell you who and what it reminds me of: Jeremiah Wright. We are hearing Jeremiah Wright when Obama gets testy and ticked off on the campaign trail. We are learning that he heard Reverend Wright, all those twenty years. His message, his tone, his beliefs, sound like Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit. When he starts dropping his Gs, starts gettin' all angry and ticked off—I even heard somebody talk about chickens coming home to roost, the other day, from the campaign. Wish I could remember who I heard say that, but regardless, sounds just like Jeremiah Wright. When he gets all mad, angry, starts chidin' the Congressional Black Caucus; message, tone, beliefs—that's why he was attracted to Jeremiah Wright and his church in the first place, is because he you strip away the façade, and what you have here is an angry young guy ticked off. And whatever he thinks are the injustices and the inequities of this country, Barack Obama getting in touch with his inner Reverend Wright. Even talks "honky" around white people. You know what I mean by that term. You might have to explain it to Rachel [Maddow], who is as white-bred as anybody I know. But he talks "honky". —of, well, whatever it is he is accusing Obama of, or Herman Cain saying that the way to neutralize the race card is to vote for the black man, it seems pretty apparent that conservatives, with their longstanding fears about moral relativism, have undertaken—perhaps for convenience, perhaps as a sad and inevitable human frailty—a relativistic outlook, and in the tradition of conservatives, managed to mangle the idea completely. And therein lies a lesson: Racism, relativism, justice, equality—if there is a way to screw up a basic idea about goodness in the human endeavor, the right wing will find it. Some days, the rape of good ideas seems their only purpose in the Universe. Consider Limbaugh's argument: President Obama is a black liberation theologian in the vein of Jeremiah Wright, except when he's around white people; then he talks "honky". Question: Just how stupid does Limbaugh think people are? I mean, really: Apparently white people need this explained to them because they are too stupid to figure out that Obama is just talking "honky" to them. Rush Limbaugh claims an audience of twenty to thirty million people; one wonders, then, if he is really presuming that ten percent of the population—mostly white—really is so stupid that they need to be reminded of what is, at least in Limbaugh's view, obvious. Or is it more likely that he is spinning a tall tale? With anxious legions out there to remind us that it's not racism, but, rather, "some ... will use any weapon at hand to stop Obama", it seems Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have found a fertile crescent to tend. How does one engage this crowd in dialogue? You know, as opposed to competing monologues? There is only one way, and it reminds me of university fraternity rituals: Yes, sir. Thank you. May I have another? (Sssssssmack!) Yes, sir. Thank you. May I have another? (Sssssssmack!) And so on. The hard part is establishing a dialogue pertaining to reality, since reality itself is off-limits to this crowd. Those who have attended American politics for a few cycles have seen it frequently: Ronald Reagan, the "Great Communicator", established the current, admirable form of insulting the hell out of whoever you disagree with because it's easier than formulating a real argument. Oh, I'm sorry, did I say admirable? Well, it's admirable to the right wing when it's Republicans doing it. Having proven the marketplace efficacy of such an approach, the right wing naturally cries foul whenever this tool is turned against them. Meanwhile, folks like Limbaugh continue spinning hateful fantasies in order to drag society down into an extraneous kerfuffle. And it is not that people don't understand the sting of being accused of petty racism. Rather, what is puzzling is that many on the right wing seem to want to be petty racists, and tend to think the one thing they shouldn't be called is racist. Because they're not. They're just really, really upset at the Kenyan anti-colonial Nazi commie fascist black liberation theologian's tendency to pursue politically moderate polices. So liberal. So extremist. So not "honky". Ladies and gentlemen, this is your American right wing. ____________________ Notes: Tomorrow, Tom. "Our story so far". This Modern World. September 26, 2011. DailyKos.com. September 27, 2011. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/26/1019610/-Our-story-so-far Media Matters for America. "Limbaugh: Obama 'Talks Honky Around White People'". MMTV. September 27, 2011. MediaMatters.org. September 27, 2011. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201109270018
Well as you probably know, when the mainstream media attempts to hold the far right accountable for its actions, the effort usually backfires. What's needed instead is a Fox News for the centre-left, with (mostly male) handpuppet news anchors who belch frequently and speak often of beer and football. Ernie and Bert aren't a good choice because their image is already tainted amongst much of the target demographic, but there could be many other prime candidates out there. Between the top stories about the pageant mom suing for $10 million after only winning second prize, and Carl's Jr. possibly considering taking Xtra Bigass Fries off the menu, I imagine you could possibly squeeze in a half hour about the LA County Sheriff being filmed at a KKK rally or whatever it is.
Tru'nuff Perhaps the return of The Man Show except on MSNBC this time? Rachel Maddow, wearing a foil bikini and serving beer? Lawrence O'Donnell as The Fox, pounding down a stein in two seconds? Who would be the overweight twelve year-old asking women on the street obscene questions? Maybe an online petition to prove the stereotype about black men's penises? You know, get a million signatures asking Barack Obama to whip it out at a debate and prove he's black enough? The possibilities are endless. And imagine the response: Rush Limbaugh waving his willy, saying, "Hey, with the cameras on, I can see it! I haven't seen it in twenty years!" And then he might start a penis pride movement where white men will stand up to the blacks: "Just because we have little dicks doesn't mean you can give us health care!" You know, it's like we hear now and then from a friend who was a history major, or something, about how America is following Rome into decadence, and so on; maybe the liberal media conspiracy can enter a partnership with Zuffa to have overweight, unemployed, working class Americans strip to their skivvies and fight to the death between Mika Brezinski's combo news updates and panty fashion shows. Every once in a while, the Roman decadence theory seems to rear its head. I would say I can't believe this is what we've come to as a nation, but in our pseudo-capitalist world, somebody's gotta pay for it, which is why ratings are more important than actual content. So it seems rather foolish to say I can't believe I'm witnessing the inevitable.
I find it amusing that you feel the far right gets media protection. With the exception of Fox, I think it is difficult to argue that the media does not, in general, lean towards the left. As an example, we have a sitting governor state (Bev Purdue) that she feels that it would be appropriate to "suspend elections" in Congress until they get their act together. For the most part, it is barely reported, particularly by the main street media. She later stated that she it was "satire", and most of the media outlets supported this idea, stating in the headline that she was joking. http://projects.newsobserver.com/un...ional_elections_for_two_years_was_she_serious If you listen to the audio below, however, you will clearly hear that this was not meant as a joke, but was an attempt at an actual suggestion. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/n...s-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/ If a Republican governor had stated this, it probably would have been news on the front page of major media networks. Most of you probably did not even hear about it. So when you state that the media does not hold the "right wing" accountable, or that it backfires, I ask a simple question. Are you serious?
I find it amusing that you think I said that. I said media efforts to go after the far right backfire. That means when someone like Glenn Beck starts drowning the airwaves with monkey faces and childish spitting noises, he seems to win over a large percentage of the public. I think it's ridiculous that Rupert Murdoch gets to dictate what "the left" is in the first place. It's in the Washington Post, so how can you say it slipped under the radar? Baloney. These kinds of factual distortions, non-sequitors and strawman arguments are part of the very problem Tiassa is citing. No one even knows what would happen if Bev Perdue were a Republican, so why bother speculating in the first place? If we're gonna speculate, how about this one: If Dick Cheney's original long and short form birth certificates both went missing, do you think anyone would give a hoot?
Left or right they all screw the taxpayers out of the money they have. Even though they represent two different views there's only one view that Congress and politicians have...take others money away and spend it on their constituents, who gave them money in order to run for office, that soon flows back to them through kickbacks.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, that's a big part of the problem. There's not much point to debating the underlying value system a politician of one stripe or another uses to justify their policies, when most politicians don't adhere to the values they themselves proclaim. I will say this much- I believe American voters have been getting exactly what they've been asking for, even if what they've been asking for differs from what they actually want.
The problem is not that Rush thinks people are stupid, it's that people acutally are stupid. How else would the man be the highest payed guy in radio otherwise spouting the hate spin that he does? It's almost as though this happens, My Daddy was a republican and his daddy before him so I'm a republican too. Even though their message, SOP, and modus operandi have change 100% since then I will listen to and agree with anything that anyone says if they first claim to be a republican. Current republican party = the big business party They do not give a fuck about you regular American Joe WHO VOTES THEM IN. They say its because big business trickles down into the economy, but really the CEO's and executives line there pockets instead of hiring more people and expanding their business. They say they can't give up the Bush tax cuts, but show me exactly what those cuts have done for America? Even with the cuts our economy IS STILL SHIT.
First of all, Glenn Beck is not main street media. He is no longer even on Fox. We are talking about actual news sources, not some goof on the radio. Second, showing a blog on the Washington post only proves my point. That was not an article, it was just some comment section. Find me an actual article on a reputable site. Finally, Dick Cheney is a poor example to use for an argument. He has been a favorite of the press since he became Vice-President (including endless accusations that he actually ran the country). He is still regularly a press favorite for quotes even though he has been out of office for years. And yes, if he was president, was born in another country, and lived in Indonesia, someone might speculate something about him, as well if they thought it would gain political advantage.
Well Fox News isn't reputable, because they repeat debunked lies and then deny having repeated the lie once the lie has been further debunked to the point of ridicule. USA Today and CNN are far more reputable than Fox, and both carried the story. Rather than giving me another excuse for ignoring my sources, why don't you just list out your talking points so I can see your excuses in advance and then bypass them rather than wasting my time? That's because he helped get thousands of Americans needlessly killed for nonexistent phantom weapons in Iraq, as well as ruining America's credibility in foreign circles and wrecking investor confidence in its economy as part of the Bush admin. Yet how often does any of the mainstream the media go after him for answers? Well what if he was born in America, like Barack Obama was, and high-level federal Republicans were openly denying his home state's legitimacy as a credible witness to American birth and citizenship? If Big Dick was born in Hawaii, and he lost his original long and short form birth certificates, would anyone give a shit? If George W. Bush, who in fact was a sitting president, happened to lose the portions of his military record discussing an un-excused AWOL from military service, would enough Americans give enough of a shit to declare him unfit for office?
Something About Head Something About Head One thing I failed to explicitly convey is why I think Tom Tomorrow's tweets were "an excellent example of the progressive outlook on politics". For more on that, let us turn to Rachel Maddow: Herman Cain criticized Rick Perry's racist ranch name and racist rock at its gates. As you just saw. And then the conservatives piled on to Herman Cain. Rush Limbaugh accusing him of piggybacking on "The Washington Post" smear of Rick Perry. Matt Lewis at "The Daily Caller" calling Mr. Cain's comments, quote, "at best premature and worst highly irresponsible." He goes on, it's a cheap shot and perhaps a signal that Cain is willing to play a race card against a fellow Republican when it benefits him. Erick Erickson of the conservative blog "RedState" calling it a slander that he said Mr. Cain was picking up and running with as a way to get into second place. And by this afternoon, the day after his original comments, here's how Herman Cain was handling questions about the Rick Perry racist hunting camp story. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CAIN: This question, this question of was I satisfied with Governor Perry's explanation about the name on that ranch where he went hunting—and I said, yes, I am. Next question. REPORTER: Are you disappointed any of the other candidates haven't expressed similar reactions like you have? CAIN: Relative to? REPORTER: Relative to this rock on the Perry— CAIN: No, doesn't bother me at all. REPORTER: Some conservatives have said you bought into the liberal media trying to smear Perry necessarily as a racist. Do you think you played the race card? Do you regret at all what you said on "FOX News Sunday" or ABC? CAIN: All I said was the mere fact that that word was there was insensitive—that's not playing the race card. I am not attacking Governor Perry. So people in the media want to attack him. I'm done with that issue. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: I'm done with that issue. The story breaks that Rick Perry and his family have this land that's named a racial slur, a racial slur painted that's been on the rock at the entrance to the camp. Herman Cain raises questions about how long it took to paint over the racial slur. For example, questions were also raised by the newspaper article. And Herman Cain says, hey, that seems pretty insensitive. And by the second full day of the story, Herman Cain is the one being forced to back track. Herman Cain is the one in political trouble. Really? America, meet the Republican Party. Republican Party, meet America. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats alike are pretty much confused. It's like we all missed the transition; at some point, we woke up thinking we were in the United States of America, and didn't notice until months or years later that we were actually living in the United States of Bizarro. As we've been finding out in recent days, "Niggerhead" is a common term in the South: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bang-bang! Niggerhead cap gun, ca. 1959. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As long as they're yummy? Nigger Head Oysters (Renamed "Negro Head Oysters" in 1955) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What you smokin'? Nigger Head Tobacco, ca. 1877 So, yeah. 1870s? Yeah, makes sense. 1950s? Well, yes. The 1980s and '90s, when at least seven people now tell The Washington Post they saw the offensive marker, after the rock—according to Gov. Perry's claim—was allegedly painted over? Okay, we're in something of a strange realm. Jay Gatsby, writing for FrumForum°, seems acutely aware of the problem: The person most at risk of harm from a racial controversy in the GOP race would prove to be Herman Cain. Cain has thrived in part by reassuring Republicans on race. The speech that won him the Florida CPAC straw poll passionately denied that there was any racial component to opposition to the Obama administration. But what would happen if Cain deviated from this script? He deviated this Weekend. He said of the painted stone on the Perry Hunting tract: "Since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place." The next day Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves to blast Cain .... .... New York Magazine excerpted several tweets from conservatives declaring themselves "former Cain supporters". Cain is "capitalizing", looking to damage his competition through lazy accusations of racism. Not only that, but the oblivious Cain is allowing himself to become a stooge for the lamestream media! I continue to hope that conservatives will develop greater awareness of how they sound outside the bubble. Here we have Herman Cain abruptly attacked by the Tea Party movement he himself had absolved of racism for describing a public display of the n-word on a candidate's property as "insensitive". What else would one call it? Cain took the precaution to state that he was not judging Perry personally and that he reaction was condition on the story proving accurate. Yet for this mild expression of a feeling universal to all Black people, we can tear up his ticket on the Tea Party Express. Yesterday Cain heard the chorus and walked back his remarks .... The entire situation seems insane. Liberals and progressives who have fretted about racism in recent years have often been told to get over it, those days are gone. And yet, more than the question of the Niggerhead marker itself, the clamor in the Republican Party is befuddling to say the least. Did The Daily Caller object when Herman Cain played the race card in 2010 against Obama? If the idea of naming things—hunting grounds, mountains, oysters, children's toys, cigarettes, &c.—"Niggerhead" isn't, by definition, insensitive, then what is it? Deliberately cruel, perhaps? Proudly hateful? Stephanie McCrummen's Washington Post article notes that several people she interviewed for the story "spoke matter-of-factly about the hunting camp and its name and wondered why it held any outside interest". They wondered why anyone would be interested? If that is not, by definition, insensitive, then what is it? Herman Cain called the naming of a hunting camp "Niggerhead" insensitive. And now the right wing is aiming to scorch him for it. How, exactly, does that line of reasoning work? Insensitive is perhaps the best word for it. We should not need to drag the nineteenth century into the twenty-first. Except, apparently, for the GOP's powerful right wing, insensitive is too liberal a word. In truth, it actually reminds me of an X-Files episode, the one about the "bleepin' dead alien", if only because I think of that Air Force pilot stumbling down the road, muttering, "This is not happening. This is not happening." And it really, really is hard to believe that in the twenty-first century, this is what we're seeing in presidential politics. You know, it's not like Cain got up on a soapbox and called Rick Perry a hateful, racist bastard. The eternal saga: How is this sort of thing continuing to infest the top tier of American politics? It could end up that this sort of thing is deliberate, but that's a bit conspiratorial. Seattle journalist Charles Mudede declared last week, in consideration of a GOP budget plan, that he finally figured out the GOP: It does come down to that bake sale thing. Those Republican students who sold cupcakes at different rates for different races. All this did, and all it could ever do, was upset or provoke liberals. The same is true with this budget plan. It lacks any seriousness. It will not cut the deficit, it will not create jobs, it will do nothing but upset or provoke liberals. This is the substance of the GOP. Their politics is a frat prank that never grows old for them. Likewise with conservative racepolitik. It seems to have the effect of paralyzing liberals, progressives, and Democrats, who simply can't figure out if they're really seeing what their eyes and ears inform them. Over at FrumForum, Gatsby worries that the right wing doesn't perceive the potential damage they're doing. Perhaps that is because they are banking on another effect. Just keep Democrats and their supporters choking and babbling with confusion; come November, 2012, the voters will, if history is any indication, forget the detail, and Democratic objections to the constant spew of racist filth from the right wing will play against them, like a scene from The Simpsons: Marge: What happened to you Homer? And what have you done to the car? Homer: Nothing. Marge: I don't think it had broken axles before. Homer: Before, before! You're living in the past, Marge! Quit living in the past! And therein we might see the two sides of the coin: Will the conservative racepolitik hurt the GOP in 2012, or can they successfully denigrate the Democrats for noticing? A risky gamble, to be certain. Indeed, it seems nearly a stupid suggestion. But in the United States of Bizarro that is the 2012 GOP presidential nomination fight, it well could be that the whole point is to keep Democrats reeling in confusion and disbelief. And it might actually work. ____________________ Notes: ° FrumForum — A news and commentary blog run by David Frum, formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and self-declared conservative Republican, whose credits include volunteer work for the 1980 Reagan campaign, GOP convention participation for over two decades, and the work for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign in 2008. Works Cited: Maddow, Rachel. "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Monday, October 3rd, 2011". Transcript. October 4, 2011. MSNBC.MSN.com. October 4, 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44772852/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/ McCrummen, Stephanie. "At Rick Perry's Texas hunting spot, camp's old racially charged name lingered". The Washington Post. October 2, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. October 4, 2011. Gatsby, Jay. "Limbaugh: How Dare Cain Find 'Niggerhead' Offensive". FrumForum. October 4, 2011. FrumForum.com. October 4, 2011. http://www.frumforum.com/limbaugh-how-dare-cain-find-niggerhead-offensive Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment". February 24, 2000. SNPP.com. October 4, 2011. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F15
That is because the structural integrity of the system is failing . It is sad too, cause it was a pretty good life there for a while . My life time anyway . New business models are emerging . It is going to be interesting to see which ones end up on top of the heap . Green markets and programs look like they are taking a beating as of late. Don't look good at all . I tell ya there is something missing . I don't quite know what it is ? A direction to go maybe ? The thing is the pioneer days are over . There is no place to seize and divide. Not like human expansion wise in physical terms anyway . There is thought expansion and space exploration but civil war is like a thing of the past . Not realistic in a global economy that is past dysfunction ( like that will happen , We can hope , read Steven Covey, He gives Me strength) Hope we can get past a dysfunctional board of people with selfish ambitions. Protectionism is the only reason Me and Ron Paul are at odds . I think that would be a step backwards in the grand shceme of things . I do think to much meddling does go on and well Ron Baby gots pretty good Idealization going there , yet you can't just shut the doors on global markets . It is not realistic . We live in a global market and if you ask me this global market has been around for 10s of thousands of years . More extensive than we give credit to ancients
Good post overall, but I wonder where you get the notion that Ron Paul is for protectionism when its in fact otherway around ! He is critizising Obama for tariffs against China. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi-9UFwo7dA There was lots of smearing, cencorship and ridiculing going on against Ron Paul in last election so its no wonder there is lots of missinfo around.
