Tom,
This is a response to your comment to me on your "What's the Difference" blog.
Thank you for addressing me from your late posted comment in a manner that was not personally condescending. It meant a lot. I will try to maintain that tone in my comment to you which I am putting in a separate blog since I am belated getting back to your comment.
I don't think we on the far left are loony or crazy. And I do think those of the progressive center left are morally compromised by supporting a corrupt corporate-captured Democratic party. I am not trying to be inflammatory right now, just honest. I know both our labels personally hurt their respective target groups, but I think the veracity of the labels do matter. I think the far left do not trust or rely as much on a propagandist mainstream corporate media as much as the Dem party progressives. I think this enhances their non-looniness.
Is "crazy" or "loony" the most accurate word to be used or just the angriest out of frustration by the majority Dem progressives -- a frustration level matched or even surpassed by those of us on the far left?
The proverbial definition of insanity is said to be for one or collective ones to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. You interpret this using the far left as an example, as continuing to divide the Dem Party by not voting or by voting for Third Party candidates.
We on the far left see it more as those of your camp, voting over and over for a massively betraying Dem Party when it seems to, except for a VERY few important identity politics issues like gay rights, be so extremely beholding to its DONOR BASE, which is the SAME base as the Republicans, incidentally. The wealthy corporatists.
I admit to my own intense, word-stinging and provocative judgments outward, though you have at least once that I have witnessed quite prominently attached "Loony" DIRECTLY to "Libby" which was maybe "liltingly alliterative" to your ears and those of sympatico others, but it stung mine and triggered an intellectual as well as historical/emotional personal reaction. I don't think I have gone directly after your sanity per se. The thinking of your progressive camp, yes. The morality of your progressive camp, well, yes. I challenge even nose-holding support for the Dem Party and Obama considering their anti-Constitutional and international law criminal policies. I list the Holder legacy infractions in a pasted copy of my earlier blog comment to you below.
I assert that conflating the far left with the far right -- your "loony left" and "rabid right" parallel, though both phrases are alliteratively catchy and provocative, is grossly unfair AND UNTRUE.
I think a minority of the right is not rabid and I think the vast majority of the far left is not loony!!! As for the more centrist Obama-enabling progressives, there is a disturbing, seemingly numbed-out “low information” status on the part of many along with others who try to be better informed as citizens but are often "educated" by a mainstream corporate media which readily omits or disinforms, and who have a tendency to apologize for and “pragmatize” unforgivable criminal Dem policies and on the part of one large segment focuses too obsessively and exclusively on Republican Party only cherry-picked crimes.
We progressives need to get together and stop fighting each other and also align ourselves with the working classes in other countries also getting economically screwed or even getting droned, bombed, displaced, wounded, killed, devastated often by the US and/or its allies. Such defense of and enabling of the corporatist Dem Party contributes to the neutering of the entire progressive family.
I noticed yesterday Stephen Colbert did a "left and right" extremist "nuts" conflation in a pistachio nut commercial on the television. Corporate media likes to seed that propagandist perspective even through such so-called progressive heros as Colbert and Stewart who make their own "pragmatic" choices. I think those "pragmatic" choices can be insidious, despite important consciousness raising they do achieve at times.
I allege the far-left purists are important to play "conscience" to the entire progressive camp but the majority of supporting corporate Dem Party progressives are no longer grounded in serious morality to respect that "conscience" role, sadly. Rhetorical stridency on the part of people like me from the left I know can arouse defensiveness, but being an emotional/intuiter I am drawn to doing some provocative attention-getting to messaging getting such short shrift among the community of Dem party progressives. It is messaging trying to combat an entire propagandist mainstream corporate media.
I wish there was a bridge to reduce the bitterness between our camps. Again, I see collusion with what I recognize as a corporate captured Dem Party as a betrayal of liberalism and democracy by the centrist Dem Party progressives. And I rationalize the angry messaging of the far left as a kind of "tough love" -- SNAP OUT OF IT -- call to turn on or away from the betraying corporate Dem Party. To demand moral-compass leadership from our government. What can now be pointed to with the Dem Party that indicates honest moral and humanitarian consideration? Corporate Dem or Republican policy agendas at home and abroad are based on grotesquely humanity-destructive sociopathic agendas. Amoral corporatism has completely infected democracy.
On a personal note, re the "crazy" (“loony”) label which I jokingly compared to as giving me a Pavlovian reaction similar to the one one of the Three Stooges upon his hearing the name “Niagara Falls” snapped into -- for anyone who still remembers. (Can’t remember which Stooge that was.)
As a kid among dominating "thinkers" in the family, if I got emotionally heated I was immediately declared loser of any argument.
Also, our culture can still easily embrace the "hysterical woman" stereotype. My having a feeler/intuiter temperament made it all the more challenging to process and express perspectives in my early social orbit. If I got extra-passionate I not only lost the argument but I was labelled "crazy." End of any listening to me of my stances.
I think we exist in an anti-feeling society with collective humanitarian sensibility shrinking ever-faster with every round of new leadership. Corporate media propaganda and sociopathic corporatists with their predatory capitalism force the government of both parties to institutionalize, support and normalize an austerity and militarism on hyperdrive.
You ask why the “Loony Left doesn’t swallow their pride and get in-line.” I say, why not more pride-swallowing on the part of the centrist Dem Party progressives? Take a gander at the list of the Obama/Holder legacy atrocities at the end of this blog and consider again how low your "lesser evilism" of the Obama administration goes.
You declare that the Rabid Right votes for the mainstream Republican candidate -- AT TIMES -- but the "Loony Left", and I am asking you to stop using that alliterative smear, "sits home and pouts or throws away their vote on some dream candidate with absolutely no chance of winning."
So you are saying better to vote for the lesser evilist corporate Dem.
I, of course, say back that the "lesser evil" has jumped the shark into unconscionable evil in my eyes. You concede you were aware of that list of Obama/Holder violations of the Constitution and international law and you can live with that -- pragmatically speaking (my paraphraising). You are saying you have to give up so much in the way of morality -- my wording again -- to get in the political power game. And that is worth it. And that is the ONLY way you imply.
How has that worked for us so far? Neither responses of our camps have worked. Because we are divided but we can't abide the other's solution.
We do disagree on political history. If more American citizens had been aware of just how corrupt BOTH corporate parties were when Nader challenged Gore this republic could have been saved from the fast hardening soft facism of present America.
Nader had one very additional inconvenient reality going against him aside from the low-awareness on the part of the citizenry of the complete captivity of a bull-shitting corporate Dem Party. Though Nader has and had unimpeachable integrity, moral imagination, and political and legal leadership policy skills and would have contributed much to draining the swamp of corruption in Washington, he is Lebanese so he has and had the Israeli lobbies against him full hilt, joining with the formidable corporate Dem and Republican Parties’ neocons and their casino capitalist overlords.
You say you want progressives to be involved in what I see as a bogus political system. You are asking us to hold our noses and vote Dem.
During the televised third debate between ONLY Romney and Obama in 2012, who blathered numbing bullshit, spinning anti-citizen and anti-humanity policies as a pro-citizen and pro-humanity Jill Stein of the Green Party, who had committed an act of civil disobedience earlier in the day (which went unreported totally by the US corporate media), and was handcuffed to a folding chair in an empty room somewhere on the campus with her Green vp candidate partner. She was cuffed there for eight long hours and taken away only after the debate was over. Again, Stein was protesting not being included in nationally televised debate. A valid objection that deserved journalistic attention and a national conversation, but we don't live in that kind of democratic society. The mainstream media belongs to the corporatists fully. Look at their facile and dirty manufacturing consent for war (if one can discern it through all the smoke and mirrors and the bullshit storms) and their enabling of torture, just to offer two grave examples.
What follows is my original comment to your "What's the Difference?" blog which includes my list of Obama/Holder legacy SINS. Thanks again for responding!
best, libby
Cordle,What's the difference? Apologists for the corporate Dem Party are enabling the hardening of soft fascism in America. Myopic group-think and "lesser evilism" is being called out with the escalating institutionalized -- thanks to Obama & Dems -- domestic and international criminality.From my last post on Eric Holder's legacy which is Barack Obama's legacy, a serious part of it:1) Russell Mokhiber in “Why Doesn't Snowden Get the Same Deal, the DoJ Routinely Gives Major Corporate Crime Figures? Holder the Hypocrite" reveals that since taking office in Feb. 2009, Holder has extended many non-prosecution agreements -- whereby the government simply wrist slaps and collects a relatively modest fine without leveling a criminal charge -- to more than 100 large publicly held corporations. Here are some of Holder’s special deal partners:JPMorgan Chase for the Madoff Ponzi schemeArcher Daniels Midland for foreign briberyDiebold for foreign briberyUBS for interest rate manipulationHSBC for money launderingPfizer for foreign briberyWachovia for money launderingTyson Foods for foreign briberyBarclays Bank for Trading with the Enemies ActDeutsche Bank for tax shelter fraudAccording to Glen Ford the Justice Department has “institutionalized immunity from persecution for the ruling financial class.”According to Dave Lindorff banks like HSBC (above) and Citicorp have laundered billions in drug money for drug cartels.Holder successfully rationalized that criminal banks were simply “too big to fail” and that prosecution would have caused problems for “innocent shareholders.” According to Tom Carter no prominent financial figure has ever been prosecuted by the Holder Justice Department.2. Paul Street points out that the fraud of the financial elite has lead to millions of foreclosures, job losses and a huge poverty spike among the US citizenry.3. Holder in conjunction with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 has destroyed due process, our fifth amendment protection, by asserting that due process does not necessarily mean everyone criminally charged should have access to court. (Carter)4. Holder helped to protect BP after its massive ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (Carter).5. Holder supports illegal assassinations of civilians. (Carter)6. Holder supports massive militarization of the US police forces. (Lindorff).7. Holders supports the use of military commissions. (Carter)8. Holder worked against the First Amendment, with earnest prosecution efforts against whistlebowers and the journalists who use them, threatening both with jail. (Lindorff) Manning is in prison. Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian embassay in London. Snowden is forced to live in exile in Russia. No non-prosecution deals like for the banks for these whistleblowers Russell Mokhiber points out. According to Tom Carter the Holder and Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined.9. Holder assisted in restructuring the auto industry in which the wages of auto workers were brutally slashed. (Carter)10. According to Bruce Dixon, Holder deported 2 million undocumented citizens after Obama had promised them a “road to citizenship.” (Dixon in "Eric Holder: Like the Rest of the Black Political Class – Powerful But Powerless")11. Holder has targeted antiwar activists and protesters under the anti-terror laws. (Carter)12. When Director of National Security James R. Clapper committed perjury before Congress in 2013 (a felony) Holder did not prosecute. (Carter)13. According to Glen Ford even some right-wing Republicans have spoken out against mandatory sentencing and the “unsustainable growth in prison populations”. The US Congress perhaps would have been willing to repeal 100 to 1 crack cocaine penalties BUT it was Obama and Holder who opposed retroactive release of thousands of inmates convicted under the old law.14. According to Glen Ford the Federal Bureau of Prisons comes under the US Department of Justice. Its budget has risen every year under Holder and Obama. In Obama’s home state of Illinois is a brutal supermax prison. Now there is a new supermax going up, a “landlocked Guantanamo North.” Additionally, Holder hasn’t submitted ANY names of long-serving political prisoners and has submitted VERY FEW non-political prisoners for clemency.15. The CIA spied on the Congressional committee investigating the CIA -- but there has of course been no prosecution from Holder. (Carter)16. Holder enabled the unconstitutional expansion of the military-intelligence apparatus. He promoted illegitimate executive branch and military intelligence secrecy from the citizenry and Congress. (Carter) Thanks to data released by Snowden and Wikleaks it has been shown that illegal surveillance has been used to build cases against Americans and that committing perjury to conceal illegal evidence is common among law enforcement officials. (Dixon)17. Holder shielded GM in the wake of its ignition defect scandal. (Carter)18. Holder enabled the unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Holder shielded war criminals from the Bush and Obama administrations. According to Tom Carter, Holder assured Bush era criminals of illegal torture and surveillance they would NOT be investigated or prosecuted.19. Holder and Obama did very little to reduce carbon emissions despite Obama’s lies to the UN. (Lindorff)20. Bruce Dixon asserts that the Holder Justice Department refused to challenge “draconian emergency financial manager legislation” in Detroit. The Detroit bankrutpcy precedent exploiting and devastating the lives of poor and ethnic levels of urban society will now be applied to cities across America.This isn’t a complete list, but maybe enough for the reader to challenge the New York Times and Democratic Party propaganda that Holder or Obama are anywhere close to being "champions" of civil rights in America, their support for same sex marriages notwithstanding!end of quoteWe must not minimize the facts. Rabid rat bastard Republicans are dangerous. Rat bastard Dems are as well, and we need to STOP THEM FROM DESTROYING OUR REPUBLIC IN LOCKSTEP WITH REPUBS. What are the differences between enabling the rich and war criminal militarism? Stein says that the USA as the Titanic is going down, maybe it goes down faster with Republicans at helm, but it is destined for the bottom of the sea as well with the Dems.best, libby
-------------
Although I seem to be equally classified as mentally defective I can only applaud your most adequate riposte.
"We must not minimize the facts."
Therein lies the problem. These guys (and women) have a rabid aversion to facts.
They conflate opinion with fact.
When I printed out the facts concerning the 2000 election, one person even said: my opinion overrides your facts.
-R-
Therein lies the problem. These guys (and women) have a rabid aversion to facts.
They conflate opinion with fact.
When I printed out the facts concerning the 2000 election, one person even said: my opinion overrides your facts.
-R-
Libby,
If we are going to have dialogue that's worth anything, you have to be prepared to defend the proposition that the differences between the parties that continue to exist are insignificant. Not that the similarities are overwhelming, which is a different case, but that the differences are insignificant.
You're answering Tom. In his case personally, Obamacare has accomplished something critically important: It has resulted in insurance covering his wife's chemotherapy. By asserting that there is no difference between the parties, you are in essence telling him that his wife's life is not worth his political stance, because one of those differences has resulted in her survival. He cannot possibly characterize that as insignificant.
In a somewhat related point, President Obama is not the only active Democrat in the country. I live in a state where we went from having a legislature controlled by Republicans while the governor was a Democrat to, in 2012, all controlled by Republicans. The differences here are unfortunately extremely significant. Education funding went to Hell to the point where Texas now holds job fairs here recruiting our teachers. Unemployment benefits were severely shortened and food stamps cut back to the point where hunger is now a significant problem here. There is now one abortion clinic in the state and it's in a remote city in the mountains. Voter ID laws are among the most draconian in the nation. These are not insignificant differences.
I don't have many ideological differences with you, but I have significant differences with you about the practical aspects of maximizing the good and minimizing the damage, as does Tom, as do many others. You want people like Tom not to use epithets on you. OK, though that is of course a two-way street. If you want us to take your concerns seriously (not that we're remotely monolithic), you have to be prepared to take ours seriously. Asserting that there is no difference by simply dismissing the differences we see will get you neither allies nor civility. If you dismiss Tom, it isn't reasonable to expect him not to dismiss you.
You say: "You elected a corporatist Democrat, Tom. How's that working out for you?" And he answers "Pretty well under the circumstances, my wife is alive and in remission because of it," and you act like he didn't say anything.
I am not saying this to tell you that your issue stand is wrong. I am saying that you can't get by the objection that some of us see significant enough differences to worry about by simply ignoring them. If you want real dialogue, craft an answer. This is the big one. This is the issue that separates the farther left from the more centrist left here. I am not trying to bring you to my political viewpoint; I am telling you what you need to accomplish if you are going to bring people like Tom and me (though our views are not identical) to yours.
There are no epithets in this comment. I am not ridiculing you or your viewpoint in any way. I am telling you what strategem will not work with us and why it won't work.
I believe you have talked about how attempting the same thing and expecting different results is one definition of insanity. (Forgive me if this is not a point you have made personally.) While this is true of elections, it is also true of bringing others around to your way of thinking. Asserting that the concerns of others are trivial is ineffective.
I don't know if you can do what I'm asking. I'm just telling you what it would take to win this population over. This is as accurate an assessment as I can give you.
If we are going to have dialogue that's worth anything, you have to be prepared to defend the proposition that the differences between the parties that continue to exist are insignificant. Not that the similarities are overwhelming, which is a different case, but that the differences are insignificant.
You're answering Tom. In his case personally, Obamacare has accomplished something critically important: It has resulted in insurance covering his wife's chemotherapy. By asserting that there is no difference between the parties, you are in essence telling him that his wife's life is not worth his political stance, because one of those differences has resulted in her survival. He cannot possibly characterize that as insignificant.
In a somewhat related point, President Obama is not the only active Democrat in the country. I live in a state where we went from having a legislature controlled by Republicans while the governor was a Democrat to, in 2012, all controlled by Republicans. The differences here are unfortunately extremely significant. Education funding went to Hell to the point where Texas now holds job fairs here recruiting our teachers. Unemployment benefits were severely shortened and food stamps cut back to the point where hunger is now a significant problem here. There is now one abortion clinic in the state and it's in a remote city in the mountains. Voter ID laws are among the most draconian in the nation. These are not insignificant differences.
I don't have many ideological differences with you, but I have significant differences with you about the practical aspects of maximizing the good and minimizing the damage, as does Tom, as do many others. You want people like Tom not to use epithets on you. OK, though that is of course a two-way street. If you want us to take your concerns seriously (not that we're remotely monolithic), you have to be prepared to take ours seriously. Asserting that there is no difference by simply dismissing the differences we see will get you neither allies nor civility. If you dismiss Tom, it isn't reasonable to expect him not to dismiss you.
You say: "You elected a corporatist Democrat, Tom. How's that working out for you?" And he answers "Pretty well under the circumstances, my wife is alive and in remission because of it," and you act like he didn't say anything.
I am not saying this to tell you that your issue stand is wrong. I am saying that you can't get by the objection that some of us see significant enough differences to worry about by simply ignoring them. If you want real dialogue, craft an answer. This is the big one. This is the issue that separates the farther left from the more centrist left here. I am not trying to bring you to my political viewpoint; I am telling you what you need to accomplish if you are going to bring people like Tom and me (though our views are not identical) to yours.
There are no epithets in this comment. I am not ridiculing you or your viewpoint in any way. I am telling you what strategem will not work with us and why it won't work.
I believe you have talked about how attempting the same thing and expecting different results is one definition of insanity. (Forgive me if this is not a point you have made personally.) While this is true of elections, it is also true of bringing others around to your way of thinking. Asserting that the concerns of others are trivial is ineffective.
I don't know if you can do what I'm asking. I'm just telling you what it would take to win this population over. This is as accurate an assessment as I can give you.
Jan, thanks yet again! :-)
Mark, yes. Truthiness still rules not reality. And then we have the false facts and omissions of facts from the mainstream media propaganda.
best, libby
Mark, yes. Truthiness still rules not reality. And then we have the false facts and omissions of facts from the mainstream media propaganda.
best, libby
Kosh, I once asserted to you that I thought you a had a bad habit of playing the "let's you and him fight" games people play game.
I can't believe you present much of your comment to me the way you do -- mighty manipulatively.
So you are pitting me apparently as a meanie against Tom's wife and her present plight for which I am seriously sorry.
Really, kosh. You needed to go there and do that with your butter wouldn't melt in your mouth faux-disingenuousness?
You are being deliberately manipulative and provocative and it is not all that clever. It is flatfooted in my eyes and disturbing. You are playing with people's emotions and open salon potential cronyism blowback.
From what I have researched about Obamacare and posted it has some decent dimensions but it is overwhelmingly extortionistic on behalf of the medial industrial complex that wrote it.
So please don't balloon up that issue and put words and intentions into my mouth to be emotionally propagandistic about one serious situation which Tom has every right to make his case with. That issue clearly has every reason to be a priority in his estimation. I am not as personally close to that Obama policy but I have read much that calls out its problems and economic pressures. And it leaves millions still uninsured.
Another talking point that you use often and I take issue with is not that the Dems are equally as bad as the Republicans. It is that their lesser evil is SO EVIL IT SHOULD NOT BE ENABLED AND APOLOGIZED FOR. Please, read those 20 points I made re the Obama/Holder legacy at the end of my blog and there are plenty more sins of this Obama administration.
Suddenly you are putting words in quotes that I did not exactly say, even inserting Tom's name. WTF???? There you go making things personalized when we are talking issues. You write, "You elected a Democrat President, Tom, How's that working out for you?" I didn't put Tom's name in there kosh, and I said "How's that working out for us." No biggie it would seem, but slick enough for me to feel jarred by it. It shows more of that pitting of individual personalities for a potential small pond food fight which you seem to like to instigate and then benignly and faux-innocently referee.
By the way, I commented on Tom's blog and addressed his comment here in order to attempt, though it is not easy, to explore the gap between our progressive camps. Maybe it is not as compromising on my part as it could be. Maybe not. But it is me being honest and reining in my tone which at times is not easy for me and my frustration level.
And one more time, I am not saying there are no differences between the Dems and the Republicans, but imho I am saying that the lesser evilism of the Dems is still EXTREMELY AND FOR ME UNFORGIVEABLY EVIL. One poll says that only 30% of the population actually support the Dem Party. I am clearly not alone. Congress has an approval rating of less than 10%. Obama's stats have plummeted this year. So it sure the hell just ain't me who is picking on the Dem Party as a big fat failure.
As for me trivializing YOUR concerns. I see YOUR CAMP trivializing BIG TIME MINE!!! Gitmo, enabling corporations, enabling international war crimes, enabling torture and its criminals, enabling environmental criminals, well, the list I posted I won't repeat but in essence I am calling out the collusion of the Obama administration with bottom feeding scum sucking corporatists to subvert Constitutional and human and international law and regulation. That is being minimized by too many members of the pro-Dem party progressives who would rather cherry pick specific Repubs and their crimes when both parties are pimped out by the same DONOR BASE overlords.
My thoughts.
best, libby
I can't believe you present much of your comment to me the way you do -- mighty manipulatively.
So you are pitting me apparently as a meanie against Tom's wife and her present plight for which I am seriously sorry.
Really, kosh. You needed to go there and do that with your butter wouldn't melt in your mouth faux-disingenuousness?
You are being deliberately manipulative and provocative and it is not all that clever. It is flatfooted in my eyes and disturbing. You are playing with people's emotions and open salon potential cronyism blowback.
From what I have researched about Obamacare and posted it has some decent dimensions but it is overwhelmingly extortionistic on behalf of the medial industrial complex that wrote it.
So please don't balloon up that issue and put words and intentions into my mouth to be emotionally propagandistic about one serious situation which Tom has every right to make his case with. That issue clearly has every reason to be a priority in his estimation. I am not as personally close to that Obama policy but I have read much that calls out its problems and economic pressures. And it leaves millions still uninsured.
Another talking point that you use often and I take issue with is not that the Dems are equally as bad as the Republicans. It is that their lesser evil is SO EVIL IT SHOULD NOT BE ENABLED AND APOLOGIZED FOR. Please, read those 20 points I made re the Obama/Holder legacy at the end of my blog and there are plenty more sins of this Obama administration.
Suddenly you are putting words in quotes that I did not exactly say, even inserting Tom's name. WTF???? There you go making things personalized when we are talking issues. You write, "You elected a Democrat President, Tom, How's that working out for you?" I didn't put Tom's name in there kosh, and I said "How's that working out for us." No biggie it would seem, but slick enough for me to feel jarred by it. It shows more of that pitting of individual personalities for a potential small pond food fight which you seem to like to instigate and then benignly and faux-innocently referee.
By the way, I commented on Tom's blog and addressed his comment here in order to attempt, though it is not easy, to explore the gap between our progressive camps. Maybe it is not as compromising on my part as it could be. Maybe not. But it is me being honest and reining in my tone which at times is not easy for me and my frustration level.
And one more time, I am not saying there are no differences between the Dems and the Republicans, but imho I am saying that the lesser evilism of the Dems is still EXTREMELY AND FOR ME UNFORGIVEABLY EVIL. One poll says that only 30% of the population actually support the Dem Party. I am clearly not alone. Congress has an approval rating of less than 10%. Obama's stats have plummeted this year. So it sure the hell just ain't me who is picking on the Dem Party as a big fat failure.
As for me trivializing YOUR concerns. I see YOUR CAMP trivializing BIG TIME MINE!!! Gitmo, enabling corporations, enabling international war crimes, enabling torture and its criminals, enabling environmental criminals, well, the list I posted I won't repeat but in essence I am calling out the collusion of the Obama administration with bottom feeding scum sucking corporatists to subvert Constitutional and human and international law and regulation. That is being minimized by too many members of the pro-Dem party progressives who would rather cherry pick specific Repubs and their crimes when both parties are pimped out by the same DONOR BASE overlords.
My thoughts.
best, libby
I don't know enough about any of this to get involved. and i'm relieved. but i am deeply moved and happy that Tom's wife is alive and in remission.
kosher i am freaking heartbroken about the changes that have taken place where you live. cutting food stamps, 1 abortion clinic? sadly, this is and has happened all over this country. a nation that can't or won't feed its people, won't feed its children, it's either 20 or 25% of kids who go hungry. -i don't give a flying fuck who is in charge. or who is responsible for what anymore. we need to feed our fucking children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but they have no powerful lobby working for them. i'm sorry. i'm not good at this. i'm all over the place. i don't care about theories. i care about results. a woman is alive and in remission. children are starving. let's all shut the freak up and donate and/or work at food banks and figure out better ways to get food to the people who need it. that's what i care about. the rest is just intellectual masturbation. off to donate.
kosher i am freaking heartbroken about the changes that have taken place where you live. cutting food stamps, 1 abortion clinic? sadly, this is and has happened all over this country. a nation that can't or won't feed its people, won't feed its children, it's either 20 or 25% of kids who go hungry. -i don't give a flying fuck who is in charge. or who is responsible for what anymore. we need to feed our fucking children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but they have no powerful lobby working for them. i'm sorry. i'm not good at this. i'm all over the place. i don't care about theories. i care about results. a woman is alive and in remission. children are starving. let's all shut the freak up and donate and/or work at food banks and figure out better ways to get food to the people who need it. that's what i care about. the rest is just intellectual masturbation. off to donate.
and i am donating to the food bank instead of going there because the insurance i have -- and i am blessed to have insurance at all -- does not cover the treatments i need because there is no mental health parity despite the efforts of NAMI and other organizations that lobby for people like me. we are not a priority. we also do not have a powerful enough lobby and we are a pretty fucked up bunch so...
And, I, too am VERY happy to hear that Tom's wife is in remission, but kosh remains willfully ignorant of the FACT that forty four million americans don't have health insurance, at all.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
Wasn't the point from the beginning to provide insurance for ALL americans?
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
Wasn't the point from the beginning to provide insurance for ALL americans?
I'll leave a longer comment much later today libby. But as one in the "politics as the art of the possible" camp who sees voting more as a means to an end, you probably know what to expect. It's a subject that I've had several discussions with my dearest friend who has voted Green in the last four presidential elections, just to show you how persuasive I can be. I'll rate you when I make the longer comment to get you back in the feed.
Libby,
I apologize for my use of the quotes, I meant them generically, as in "this is the content of each argument. " To my knowledge, Tom never stated that verbatim either.
I'm not trying to smear you or portray you as heartless. That would be a waste of my time. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking to you. I don't need to marginalize you. You're already marginalized; that's what "loony" is; that's what your post is about. You're asking for a bridge. I'm telling you where the bridge has to be built to get us on it. If I were to attempt to marginalize you, I would affect the opinion of no one who doesn't already view you as marginal; as I said, a waste of my time.
I start out about this very explicitly. "Not that the similarities are overwhelming, which is a different case, but that the differences are insignificant."
"I am saying that the lesser evilism of the Dems is still EXTREMELY AND FOR ME UNFORGIVEABLY EVIL." In this comment I'm using quotes literally. Here you are saying that the similarities are overwhelming. We know that. Of course Obamacare is inadequate. It was written by the Heritage Foundation; what do you expect? Do you think that no one on the Near Left notices what Obama did about the NSA or didn't do about the bankers? (We tend to be focused more on domestic policy than foreign.)
When you talk about how many Obamacare leaves uninsured, at least that's the beginning of a case. For you to answer Tom that the problem with supporting Obamacare is that his wife is the exception rather than the rule, you're at least looking in the right neighborhood. If you have to tell him that you can't advocate supporting the man who saved his wife's life because he saved too few lives, that would at least answer him. From there, your case is that replacing that man with someone further left would save more lives.
And here's where we really get to the neighborhood of the bridge. It's not that I think you can build it, but I'd rather be wrong.
On my side of the water, the next point is:
Show us that we can actually replace that man with someone further left.
You want to be further left. We want to be further left. In point of fact, the American people want us to be further left if you analyze by issue stands.
So far, so good.
We also don't want to be further right.
Your answer is that protecting the Democrats won't keep us from being further right because the Republicans aren't appreciably further right than the Democrats.
Here is exactly where things break down.
The Near Left argument is:
Regardless of how far right the Democrats are (even though this is too broad a generalization because not every Democrat in office is Obama), preventing us from traveling the distance that still exists between Democrats and Republicans is worth doing, particularly if we don't have a realistic shot at moving farther left.
There are two materials the bridge can be built out of:
1. The distance that still exists is too tiny to bother with.
That distance is where Tom lives with his wife, and it's where the poor people of my state go hungry. We don't care how small this distance is in comparative terms, we care in absolute terms. Regardless of how evil the Democrats get, we want those people to be saved and eat. If they're not going to be saved and eat, we need something else to show for it, and by "something else" I do not mean our own purity.
2. We can offer you an alternative that will make the distance between Democrats and Republicans irrelevant.
Ok. We know that there are people who believe that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative.
Can they get to public office? If they got to public office, would they really present that alternative? After all, there are Democrats who started out thinking that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative, but most haven't managed to do that, at least not effectively. Why would the forces acting on Democrats not be in play on Greens?
That's where the bridge goes that reaches us. Once again, I'm not telling you that you don't have answers. I don't see them, but I would rather they existed. If you have them, please present them. If you don't, give us a plan to develop them.
Just please, please understand that that making the case that the similarities between the parties are overwhelming for the ninetieth time will not change the status quo. We won't suddenly get it because we already get that and it doesn't help. It doesn't make the differences go away, and it doesn't answer our concern that letting people suffer from those differences won't buy us anything and that we'll let them suffer for nothing.
I apologize for my use of the quotes, I meant them generically, as in "this is the content of each argument. " To my knowledge, Tom never stated that verbatim either.
I'm not trying to smear you or portray you as heartless. That would be a waste of my time. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking to you. I don't need to marginalize you. You're already marginalized; that's what "loony" is; that's what your post is about. You're asking for a bridge. I'm telling you where the bridge has to be built to get us on it. If I were to attempt to marginalize you, I would affect the opinion of no one who doesn't already view you as marginal; as I said, a waste of my time.
I start out about this very explicitly. "Not that the similarities are overwhelming, which is a different case, but that the differences are insignificant."
"I am saying that the lesser evilism of the Dems is still EXTREMELY AND FOR ME UNFORGIVEABLY EVIL." In this comment I'm using quotes literally. Here you are saying that the similarities are overwhelming. We know that. Of course Obamacare is inadequate. It was written by the Heritage Foundation; what do you expect? Do you think that no one on the Near Left notices what Obama did about the NSA or didn't do about the bankers? (We tend to be focused more on domestic policy than foreign.)
When you talk about how many Obamacare leaves uninsured, at least that's the beginning of a case. For you to answer Tom that the problem with supporting Obamacare is that his wife is the exception rather than the rule, you're at least looking in the right neighborhood. If you have to tell him that you can't advocate supporting the man who saved his wife's life because he saved too few lives, that would at least answer him. From there, your case is that replacing that man with someone further left would save more lives.
And here's where we really get to the neighborhood of the bridge. It's not that I think you can build it, but I'd rather be wrong.
On my side of the water, the next point is:
Show us that we can actually replace that man with someone further left.
You want to be further left. We want to be further left. In point of fact, the American people want us to be further left if you analyze by issue stands.
So far, so good.
We also don't want to be further right.
Your answer is that protecting the Democrats won't keep us from being further right because the Republicans aren't appreciably further right than the Democrats.
Here is exactly where things break down.
The Near Left argument is:
Regardless of how far right the Democrats are (even though this is too broad a generalization because not every Democrat in office is Obama), preventing us from traveling the distance that still exists between Democrats and Republicans is worth doing, particularly if we don't have a realistic shot at moving farther left.
There are two materials the bridge can be built out of:
1. The distance that still exists is too tiny to bother with.
That distance is where Tom lives with his wife, and it's where the poor people of my state go hungry. We don't care how small this distance is in comparative terms, we care in absolute terms. Regardless of how evil the Democrats get, we want those people to be saved and eat. If they're not going to be saved and eat, we need something else to show for it, and by "something else" I do not mean our own purity.
2. We can offer you an alternative that will make the distance between Democrats and Republicans irrelevant.
Ok. We know that there are people who believe that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative.
Can they get to public office? If they got to public office, would they really present that alternative? After all, there are Democrats who started out thinking that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative, but most haven't managed to do that, at least not effectively. Why would the forces acting on Democrats not be in play on Greens?
That's where the bridge goes that reaches us. Once again, I'm not telling you that you don't have answers. I don't see them, but I would rather they existed. If you have them, please present them. If you don't, give us a plan to develop them.
Just please, please understand that that making the case that the similarities between the parties are overwhelming for the ninetieth time will not change the status quo. We won't suddenly get it because we already get that and it doesn't help. It doesn't make the differences go away, and it doesn't answer our concern that letting people suffer from those differences won't buy us anything and that we'll let them suffer for nothing.
If a house is on fire, the first and most important thing is to let people know. If you can put out the fire that's a plus but being aware of the fire is the main thing. Some people in the middle of a house burning down may decide that if they spit it helps and that is better than nothing. No doubt it is better than nothing but I personally would look for better solutions. The lesser evil people aren't looking.
No point in arguing with a person's religion. No amount of facts will change anything because he/she has a rationalization for everything already. In fact, I think "rationalizer" would be the appropriate term for the mentality you wish to address, i.e. people who are irrational in the name of being rational.
Truth is its own reward. I understand the statement: "No one's going to get elected telling the truth." But that does not then justify supporting liars, which is, in fact, truly loony. That's in nobody's interest - except maybe for the other liars (in the short term anyway).
Truth is its own reward. I understand the statement: "No one's going to get elected telling the truth." But that does not then justify supporting liars, which is, in fact, truly loony. That's in nobody's interest - except maybe for the other liars (in the short term anyway).
Jan,
Of course we're looking. Well, at least some of us are looking. The status quo sucks.
As regards the President, there are two issues and there are people on both sides of this argument who tend to confuse them.
1. Obama has been the target of a whole lot of opposition he didn't earn. He faced this opposition before he earned anything. Some of this is racist in nature.
2. Obama has governed from a far more conservative place than most of his Democratic supporters were prepared for. We are not happy about this at all.
Acknowledging that Obama has been hit with a colossal load of crap that had nothing to do with his conduct is not the same as stating that everything he's done wrong can be attributed to this treatment.
Put another way, attacking him and defending him are not mutually exclusive. It depends about what.
There's no excuse for all the crap he got about his name or where his father was from. None.
There's no excuse for not prosecuting any bankers for nearly destroying our country's economy. None.
This is not an either/or proposition. "Are you for him or against him?" is in this respect a non-sequitur.
My point is that defending the President against the crap he's taken over his heritage in any respect is not the same as Not Looking.
Of course we're looking. Well, at least some of us are looking. The status quo sucks.
As regards the President, there are two issues and there are people on both sides of this argument who tend to confuse them.
1. Obama has been the target of a whole lot of opposition he didn't earn. He faced this opposition before he earned anything. Some of this is racist in nature.
2. Obama has governed from a far more conservative place than most of his Democratic supporters were prepared for. We are not happy about this at all.
Acknowledging that Obama has been hit with a colossal load of crap that had nothing to do with his conduct is not the same as stating that everything he's done wrong can be attributed to this treatment.
Put another way, attacking him and defending him are not mutually exclusive. It depends about what.
There's no excuse for all the crap he got about his name or where his father was from. None.
There's no excuse for not prosecuting any bankers for nearly destroying our country's economy. None.
This is not an either/or proposition. "Are you for him or against him?" is in this respect a non-sequitur.
My point is that defending the President against the crap he's taken over his heritage in any respect is not the same as Not Looking.
Just weighin' in here, but although I am decidedly far forward progressively in political and cultural terms, I am of the persuasion that in re: party affiliation the only things worse than a "Libertarian" are the "Democrats" and worse still the "Republicans".
Everyone doesn't fit into pre-fab boxing.
Everyone doesn't fit into pre-fab boxing.
"You're asking for a bridge. I'm telling you where the bridge has to be built to get us on it."
That is you normal crock of kabuki shit, KS. You are ONCE AGAIN basically saying that the only way a bridge can be built or utilized is for all of us to "compromise (I actually prefer the word prostitute, but whatever...) our ethic, values and morals and do just as you wish and vote for a bunch of Centralist DINO's who have a completely different set of values than we do.
In a phrase: FUCK THAT NOISE! "Compromise is NOT all of us agreeing with your position and your position is that getting murdered by somebody stabbing you 5 times in the back with a 2 inch knife Democratic is somehow superior to having your throat slashed with a 10 inch Republican one. Our position is under either of those options you are STILL fucking dead, so there IS no difference.
For me, at least, the only viable option is to walk away from both of the parties that want me dead and work to elect someone who doesn't believe that way.
BTW, as for the thoroughly bullshit contention that 3rd party candidates will never win, that would only be true if said 3rd parties weren't growing so rapidly. The Green Party is the fastest growing party in the US. The number of Green votes goes WAY up each and every election cycle while the Dems and Rethug number of votes decline. Why do you suppose that is?
P.S. You DO realize that your argument is the exact same one used by Israel against returning to their 1948 borders, right? It ain't working too good for them, either.
That is you normal crock of kabuki shit, KS. You are ONCE AGAIN basically saying that the only way a bridge can be built or utilized is for all of us to "compromise (I actually prefer the word prostitute, but whatever...) our ethic, values and morals and do just as you wish and vote for a bunch of Centralist DINO's who have a completely different set of values than we do.
In a phrase: FUCK THAT NOISE! "Compromise is NOT all of us agreeing with your position and your position is that getting murdered by somebody stabbing you 5 times in the back with a 2 inch knife Democratic is somehow superior to having your throat slashed with a 10 inch Republican one. Our position is under either of those options you are STILL fucking dead, so there IS no difference.
For me, at least, the only viable option is to walk away from both of the parties that want me dead and work to elect someone who doesn't believe that way.
BTW, as for the thoroughly bullshit contention that 3rd party candidates will never win, that would only be true if said 3rd parties weren't growing so rapidly. The Green Party is the fastest growing party in the US. The number of Green votes goes WAY up each and every election cycle while the Dems and Rethug number of votes decline. Why do you suppose that is?
P.S. You DO realize that your argument is the exact same one used by Israel against returning to their 1948 borders, right? It ain't working too good for them, either.
koshersalaami,
If you would let this last statement from 11/17/14 @ 11:30 am stand alone, it would say more than repeating or re-phrasing.
I like it when you self-edit down to the basics like that.
If you would let this last statement from 11/17/14 @ 11:30 am stand alone, it would say more than repeating or re-phrasing.
I like it when you self-edit down to the basics like that.
And what AKA just said.
(I always comment first on the post and then read the comments lest my personal input be contaminated initially by others opinions.)
(I always comment first on the post and then read the comments lest my personal input be contaminated initially by others opinions.)
There are too many enumerated items to take on in a meaningful way in one discussion, but they all can be handled in one way strategically with the electorate, and rhetorically in this way.
Essentially, if you divide the powers of the left and the right into corporatist and populist, like these suggest, the populist has more votes, and the corporatists have more money. That is an easy win for populists if they cooperate with one another. The problem is, they don't.
First, populists need to vote. They not only need to vote in the Presidential cycle, but they need to vote every two years. They need to vote to strengthen the party in offices which d not necessarily benefit from major contributors.
There are many ways of looking at things within a populist party, by definition. This has plaged the Democrats forever. It likely always will. If Democrats opt out in non presidential cycles, other more conservative and even reactionary ideas get blended into the mix. This happens for a variety of reasons which go way beyond money. In fact, the manner in which money becomes an increasing influence is because of Democrats being asleep at te swtich.
Many of the enumerated points list Carter as a reference point. Carter was elected from within this party. Carter is considerably to my right, and was to the right of his main rival within the party in 1980 when he lost to someone to everyone's right. arter's win in 1976 was attributable to an election paid for with public money. Private money was not allowed. That has been chipped away each cycle since 1980.
A Democrat worthy of being your reference point came from within the right side of the party, and a challenge from the left helped to weaken him. If the party could see fit to not bleed itself from within, many of the enumerated points would not be issues now. (I know that is a broad point, but brevity demands it.) No amount of posturing from the left of the party now effectively changes something like Citizens United, nor will it influence the next USSC nominations. The case for working from within and moving leftward has always worked...when it has worked. The case for assault from the left, to the detriment of the Democrats and the gain of some progressive force will leave neither in power. That only rewards the right.
Essentially, if you divide the powers of the left and the right into corporatist and populist, like these suggest, the populist has more votes, and the corporatists have more money. That is an easy win for populists if they cooperate with one another. The problem is, they don't.
First, populists need to vote. They not only need to vote in the Presidential cycle, but they need to vote every two years. They need to vote to strengthen the party in offices which d not necessarily benefit from major contributors.
There are many ways of looking at things within a populist party, by definition. This has plaged the Democrats forever. It likely always will. If Democrats opt out in non presidential cycles, other more conservative and even reactionary ideas get blended into the mix. This happens for a variety of reasons which go way beyond money. In fact, the manner in which money becomes an increasing influence is because of Democrats being asleep at te swtich.
Many of the enumerated points list Carter as a reference point. Carter was elected from within this party. Carter is considerably to my right, and was to the right of his main rival within the party in 1980 when he lost to someone to everyone's right. arter's win in 1976 was attributable to an election paid for with public money. Private money was not allowed. That has been chipped away each cycle since 1980.
A Democrat worthy of being your reference point came from within the right side of the party, and a challenge from the left helped to weaken him. If the party could see fit to not bleed itself from within, many of the enumerated points would not be issues now. (I know that is a broad point, but brevity demands it.) No amount of posturing from the left of the party now effectively changes something like Citizens United, nor will it influence the next USSC nominations. The case for working from within and moving leftward has always worked...when it has worked. The case for assault from the left, to the detriment of the Democrats and the gain of some progressive force will leave neither in power. That only rewards the right.
First of all Beck, you wouldn't know "brevity" if it walked up and bit you on your ass.
Secondly, RE you statement, "No amount of posturing from the left of the party now effectively changes something like Citizens United...
Everyone to the left of Centralist is NOT a Democrat, a Democratic " temporary defector" or a "maybe" Democrat. There is a LOT of us (and the number is growing rapidly) that have washed our hands of "death by multiple small wounds" lesser evilism that is the hallmark of the Democratic party. We "ain't" your party, we never will be again and OUR numbers are growing, while your Centralist DINO asses are bemoaning poor turn out and/or are "cooking the books" to FORCE a kabuki two party only party on people like states like California are doing.
Lastly, using a bunch of "big words" (like in the nonsensical first paragraph of your comment), in an effort to impress everyone with your "intelligence" so as to prove that you have a more valid point, was a pretty colossal fail and just shows your insecurities.
Secondly, RE you statement, "No amount of posturing from the left of the party now effectively changes something like Citizens United...
Everyone to the left of Centralist is NOT a Democrat, a Democratic " temporary defector" or a "maybe" Democrat. There is a LOT of us (and the number is growing rapidly) that have washed our hands of "death by multiple small wounds" lesser evilism that is the hallmark of the Democratic party. We "ain't" your party, we never will be again and OUR numbers are growing, while your Centralist DINO asses are bemoaning poor turn out and/or are "cooking the books" to FORCE a kabuki two party only party on people like states like California are doing.
Lastly, using a bunch of "big words" (like in the nonsensical first paragraph of your comment), in an effort to impress everyone with your "intelligence" so as to prove that you have a more valid point, was a pretty colossal fail and just shows your insecurities.
AKA,
I write as I think. If I'd thought of the last way I put it first my comment would have been shorter.
I write as I think. If I'd thought of the last way I put it first my comment would have been shorter.
koshersalaami,
I understand.
Amy,
You need small words? That's just plain funny.
Your presence on this site is like one of those pitiful persons on a street corner downtown screaming at passersby in foul language that the world is coming to and end.
Nobody hears them and their way of delivering a message does not change anything. Nobody. Not anything.
Get help.
I understand.
Amy,
You need small words? That's just plain funny.
Your presence on this site is like one of those pitiful persons on a street corner downtown screaming at passersby in foul language that the world is coming to and end.
Nobody hears them and their way of delivering a message does not change anything. Nobody. Not anything.
Get help.
great discussion. I want to weigh in briefly. I think I've made my own points about third parties and Kosh said something important:
Can they get to public office? If they got to public office, would they really present that alternative? After all, there are Democrats who started out thinking that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative, but most haven't managed to do that, at least not effectively. Why would the forces acting on Democrats not be in play on Greens?
THAT in a nutshell is the issue. The system is rigged. This isn't overstating because this is how our system and our rules of governing have evolved over time. Politics has rigged itself because it can vote laws that benefit politicians.
BUT the right has created an admirable dynamic - they created a third party that is ruling the republicans. It started as a populist movement and when the money brokers (Koch's) saw an opportunity to take a movement and mold it to their own advantage. So they poured money into the tea party, and voila! they're running the show and rigging elections across the country, with lies, deceptions, negative messaging and blitzing the voters with so much crazy negativity no one knows who in hell to vote for so they stay away.
My point is there's room for a third party but those third and fourth and fifth parties need money. And there lies the rub: whose money? Because he who writes the checks, influences the agenda.
And power corrupts, more often than not.
I see term limits as a partial solution but truthfully, imo, our system of government is coming to an end. We've already become a money driven, capitialist/fascist controlled system. We the people do not have much of a voice, if a voice at all. But corporate lobbyists do.
We can vote. But voters are so disgusted with what we're presented with, plus the system endeavors to make it more difficult to vote, not easier..
Those of you who work for the greens believe in the sanctity of your party but I will predict that even if they gain power, you will lose your party. Does anyone really believe any idealistic party can stand up to the pressures that have destroyed our American system?
Both democrats and republicans have at various times have made beneficial changes to our system and our country. There is a global economy that is formulating beneath all politics - it's the undercurrent that drives it, the inconceivable money that is being made and utilized.
in the meantime it is sucking dry the planets natural resources by funding opposition to any regulations or changes that might benefit future generations. We can't even agree about "global warming" and greenhouse gases.
I'm afraid, the left and the far left at one another's throats is just par for the course, pointless and inevitable. Neither will get what they want. And neither will the right. What we're getting isn't something anyone wants unless they are billionaires.
I'll keep voting. But I don't hold out much hope anymore.
Can they get to public office? If they got to public office, would they really present that alternative? After all, there are Democrats who started out thinking that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative, but most haven't managed to do that, at least not effectively. Why would the forces acting on Democrats not be in play on Greens?
THAT in a nutshell is the issue. The system is rigged. This isn't overstating because this is how our system and our rules of governing have evolved over time. Politics has rigged itself because it can vote laws that benefit politicians.
BUT the right has created an admirable dynamic - they created a third party that is ruling the republicans. It started as a populist movement and when the money brokers (Koch's) saw an opportunity to take a movement and mold it to their own advantage. So they poured money into the tea party, and voila! they're running the show and rigging elections across the country, with lies, deceptions, negative messaging and blitzing the voters with so much crazy negativity no one knows who in hell to vote for so they stay away.
My point is there's room for a third party but those third and fourth and fifth parties need money. And there lies the rub: whose money? Because he who writes the checks, influences the agenda.
And power corrupts, more often than not.
I see term limits as a partial solution but truthfully, imo, our system of government is coming to an end. We've already become a money driven, capitialist/fascist controlled system. We the people do not have much of a voice, if a voice at all. But corporate lobbyists do.
We can vote. But voters are so disgusted with what we're presented with, plus the system endeavors to make it more difficult to vote, not easier..
Those of you who work for the greens believe in the sanctity of your party but I will predict that even if they gain power, you will lose your party. Does anyone really believe any idealistic party can stand up to the pressures that have destroyed our American system?
Both democrats and republicans have at various times have made beneficial changes to our system and our country. There is a global economy that is formulating beneath all politics - it's the undercurrent that drives it, the inconceivable money that is being made and utilized.
in the meantime it is sucking dry the planets natural resources by funding opposition to any regulations or changes that might benefit future generations. We can't even agree about "global warming" and greenhouse gases.
I'm afraid, the left and the far left at one another's throats is just par for the course, pointless and inevitable. Neither will get what they want. And neither will the right. What we're getting isn't something anyone wants unless they are billionaires.
I'll keep voting. But I don't hold out much hope anymore.
What I find most amazing about the bobsy twins, Amy, is how they blithely skip over obama's "signature" achievement:
forty four million americans don't have health insurance, at all.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
ObamaCare Coverage Summary
Regardless of what you pay, ObamaCare greatly improves the health care industry including the minimum standards of what health insurance must cover. 44 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance are projected to be covered under new health care law.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamahealthcare-summary/
Truly a match made in "heaven!"
forty four million americans don't have health insurance, at all.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
ObamaCare Coverage Summary
Regardless of what you pay, ObamaCare greatly improves the health care industry including the minimum standards of what health insurance must cover. 44 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance are projected to be covered under new health care law.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamahealthcare-summary/
Truly a match made in "heaven!"
Amy, you talk about leaving certain positions for moral reasons, but you are never the example of morality. You use "evil" as a rhetorical choice for intimidation, and you use insults for intimidation. That is not a moral position. As for big words, which I see none, aren't we talking among adults in a comment section? How is that a relevant criticism? What word seems big to you? What are your insults meant to do? Soothe? Oops. Too big?
R & R
.
.
"Lastly, using a bunch of "big words" (like in the nonsensical first paragraph of your comment), in an effort to impress everyone with your "intelligence" so as to prove that you have a more valid point, was a pretty colossal fail and just shows your insecurities.
Safe_Bet's Amy"
Unfair to leave out the small words at which he is equally inept:
"which d not"
"at te swtich."
"arter's win"
beck NEVER met a spell-checker, which he couldn't despise, and heaven forbid editing his words before hitting "send."
Safe_Bet's Amy"
Unfair to leave out the small words at which he is equally inept:
"which d not"
"at te swtich."
"arter's win"
beck NEVER met a spell-checker, which he couldn't despise, and heaven forbid editing his words before hitting "send."
From the Kaiser Family foundation on 10/29/14:
"Baseline estimates show that over 41 million individuals were uninsured in 2013, prior to the start of the major ACA coverage provisions, and early evidence suggests that the ACA has reduced this number. "
and uh ...snip
"As of 2014, the ACA helps expand coverage to millions of currently uninsured people through the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. The ACA also includes reforms to help people maintain coverage and make private insurance affordable and accessible. Early evidence on coverage in the first few months of 2014 indicates that the number of uninsured has declined since the availability of these new provisions."
Better cannot also be worse.
"Baseline estimates show that over 41 million individuals were uninsured in 2013, prior to the start of the major ACA coverage provisions, and early evidence suggests that the ACA has reduced this number. "
and uh ...snip
"As of 2014, the ACA helps expand coverage to millions of currently uninsured people through the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. The ACA also includes reforms to help people maintain coverage and make private insurance affordable and accessible. Early evidence on coverage in the first few months of 2014 indicates that the number of uninsured has declined since the availability of these new provisions."
Better cannot also be worse.
Leave it to alsoknownas what(?) to cite a basically republican think tank lead by:
Dr. Altman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Dr. Altman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Beck, you might "baffle" the sheeple like AKA "with bullshit", but try as you might you are FAR from a self-perceived black, pipe-smoking intellectual Bill Buckley or Gore Vidal. you don't have the mental chops for it, dude. As an example, you simply re-phased KosherBaloney's mantra of "compromise and do it MY way" and it is clear that the "way" you two want us to go is to accept "incremental suicide".
BTW, way to only attack and insult, Beck. At least you could mix in a LITTLE of this posts subject matter into your personal attacks, ya think?
AKA, I know you are just too stupid to grasp this, but the BIGGEST roadblock to Universal Healthcare is the Obama administration's ACA... a program that is SOLD as healthcare, but is in reality a subsidized pandering to Big Insurance (who I bet is who Billy Boy Beck actually works for). Until the "lesser evilism" of Obamacare is removed, we will never get to where MOST people want to be.
FM, I get the "power corrupts" thing, I really do. That said, I'll go with the "some day might be corrupted" people who, at least currently, represent my values vs. the "already corrupted" people I know don't. To do otherwise is to make the "hope" go away and I'm not there yet.
BTW, way to only attack and insult, Beck. At least you could mix in a LITTLE of this posts subject matter into your personal attacks, ya think?
AKA, I know you are just too stupid to grasp this, but the BIGGEST roadblock to Universal Healthcare is the Obama administration's ACA... a program that is SOLD as healthcare, but is in reality a subsidized pandering to Big Insurance (who I bet is who Billy Boy Beck actually works for). Until the "lesser evilism" of Obamacare is removed, we will never get to where MOST people want to be.
FM, I get the "power corrupts" thing, I really do. That said, I'll go with the "some day might be corrupted" people who, at least currently, represent my values vs. the "already corrupted" people I know don't. To do otherwise is to make the "hope" go away and I'm not there yet.
I seem to require something MORE than tap beer on Locust+Okland.
Not unlike the eyes of that emigre oriental student near the end of what did they label it?
Where was the macing? Oakland?
Rhetoric is a one-sided coin .
This whole blogging soap-boxing BS is but a strategic pivot for the evil PTP.
Judge Knot plays a role.
Look out! Lesser is yet: 'How bad isit?'
With a special thank you while the KSaigns keep rolling along.
Miryah just said,
'Gonna leave?'
Any clues out there on the Brit in Black-that tall, merciless butcher?
The survivors, you know, really want to know.
Why don't y'll get just as vehement with that vested fella you took out 48 high schoolers last week?
Fake typists! Bullhorn wannabes!
Not unlike the eyes of that emigre oriental student near the end of what did they label it?
Where was the macing? Oakland?
Rhetoric is a one-sided coin .
This whole blogging soap-boxing BS is but a strategic pivot for the evil PTP.
Judge Knot plays a role.
Look out! Lesser is yet: 'How bad isit?'
With a special thank you while the KSaigns keep rolling along.
Miryah just said,
'Gonna leave?'
Any clues out there on the Brit in Black-that tall, merciless butcher?
The survivors, you know, really want to know.
Why don't y'll get just as vehement with that vested fella you took out 48 high schoolers last week?
Fake typists! Bullhorn wannabes!
"are FAR from a self-perceived black, pipe-smoking intellectual Bill Buckley or Gore Vidal. you don't have the mental chops for it, dude."
Nah, Amy, after beck declared on joebanana's that he doesn't smoke, it wascigars he confessed to smoking.
One would be hard pressed to find a more deceptive example of beckian deceit, but that was one of the his most sickening dives into the NETHERWORLD.
Nah, Amy, after beck declared on joebanana's that he doesn't smoke, it wascigars he confessed to smoking.
One would be hard pressed to find a more deceptive example of beckian deceit, but that was one of the his most sickening dives into the NETHERWORLD.
Obama the child killer.
It's not mentioned in the mainstream media at all. It's not talked about around the dinner table much. It seems to be a taboo subject, but it's a reality. With no remorse no less. Not one or two children, not thirty or forty, hundreds, maybe thousands of infants, babies, toddlers, kids, children, youngsters. And there's no outrage because we've been denied the truth for so long, the only place it's mentioned is in foreign media. Our government kills journalists that get too close to the reality of what we're not supposed to see. The irony is that the biggest threat to liberty, freedom, and life, is the people we elected to be our "representatives". Those same people who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution. That act provides no choice. To violate the supreme law of this land, is the highest dishonor, the worst crime, that can be perpetrated. Aside from killing children. Every drone strike Obama signs off on, has the potential of killing more than it's intended target, and most often does. This "war" isn't about freedom, what the attacks of 911 started our government is finishing. Every "extremist" killed in these drone strikes, produces a family of anti-American sentiment. G.W. Bush is a wanted man. There are arrest warrants for him around the world. And as soon as Obama is out of office, there will be arrest warrants for him too. Harboring war criminals isn't what the America I grew up in does.
Camel cigarettes used to use Joe Camel to sell cigarettes to kids. Tobacco kills. I'm sure you're aware. The America I grew up in went after the tobacco companies because of how many people were killed with cigarette smoke. It seems that it is a carcinogen. That means it causes cancer.
The hook was that they used cartoons like Joe Camel, and other things which lure kids, and sell the idea of smoking to them. A clown with a cigar in the mouth is fairly typical of the sort of method used to attract kids to the cigarette companies which dealt death. Lots, and lots, and lots of death.
"Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women"
That is a lot of death.
Then there is second hand smoke. It is listed as an entirely separate category.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke—sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke—causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1
Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart disease.1,9,10"
That is a lot of death too, and that is just second hand smoke.
Obama smokes. Your clown avatar smokes. Do you smoke? The deaths listed above are annual figures. Let me know when the drone strikes get to that level. Tobacco, especially sold with cartoons, is a child killer.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 02:03 PM
[r] joe, every human life should matter to all of us within the human family.
93,000 men, women and children are dead in Syria because the US and greedy vulture nations decided they wanted to exploit the Arab Spring in Syria and co-opt that protest, legitimate, for regime change and make it deadly, deadly, deadly for the citizens of that country. Enter CIA and streams of foreign jihadists including al Qaeda stage right. 2 years we have been enabling that proxy war but our media won't focus on that. This is Obama's Iraq.
More Syrians will be killed, many more soon because of the "spreading guns to the jihadists for peace" surreal travesty by the Obama regime and again the vulture like crony countries exploiting the veneer of humanitarianism which is the most cynical and evil of lies. Whatever country we decide to "help" becomes a living hell for the citizens there.
We are a nation of amoral zombies who are accessories to mass murder and genocide. Vietnam taught us nothing. Iraq taught us nothing. We become blinder and more callous with each passing decade. Willfully blind.
In Syria the Alawites, Christians, Shiites have already been hunted down and more will die because we are siding now with the Sunnis as frenemies so the US/NATO warmachine will wrap up the Syrian war so they can go after Iran and then Russia and China. What's a genocide or two when the one percent want more geopolitical power and resources.
Diplomacy, ethics, morality circled the bowl as far as faux-civilized western industrial nations are concerned.
There are so many more black ops dirty operations we don't even know of. We are on the side of authoritarian anti-citizen regimes all over the world. Spreading democracy is such bullshit.
The South American leaders are reeling from the US and cronies commandeering the Morales plane from Moscow the other day, forcing it to stay overnight in Austria, in case it was hiding Snowden. Might makes right in this world and there is a mafia coalition of country bullies led by the good old USA. Snowden has managed to show us just how tightly bonded these amoral countries are.
HOWEVER -- don't you know, though, Joe, that you must not hold Obama accountable for anything, even "baby-killing"?
I can't begin to comment on the ridiculous whatever the hell it is posed by the first commenter. I would need a vomit bucket to focus on it.
best, libby

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 07, 2013 02:32 PM
Tobacco kills.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 05:28 PM
Here's a stat for you Bill. As an American citizen, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by our own government than in a "terrorist" attack. Aspirin kills an average of 7000 people a year. Cigarettes are different than getting blown to smithereens by flying death machines for something you had no involvement in. And, smoking is a choice.

joebanana
JULY 07, 2013 05:57 PM
I notice that you did not answer the question. It is an important question. Do you smoke?
Smoking is a choice, to a degree. But, the smoking companies get kids addicted. This has been documented and proved in court. As a complete parallel structure regarding choice, people have been compelled to smoke. Efforts have been taken to mitigate that. Also, passive, or second hand smoke is not a choice. our term, "blown away" is quite interesting in this context. Smoke gets blown toward, if you will. That blowing smoke, "blows away", to use your term, 50,000 adults per year in the U.S. 50,000 who presumably are not choosing to smoke. That is a lot of blowing away...as it were.
Now, it has been offered as a theory that voting for someone makes them guilty, by extension, of blowing people away with drone. Any person who smokes presumably buys cigarettes or cigars. Buying them supports organizations which kill. This smoke is the direct cause of cancer, as the studies show. Direct. On top of that, anyone smoking in public "blows" smoke at people, which contains lethal potential. 50,000 people per year. Smoking is legal and so is voting. A life is a life. Drone strikes and cancer from second hand smoke are both INvoluntary. So.......what?

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 06:22 PM
LET ME KNOW WHEN THE DRONE STRIKES GET TO THAT LEVEL??????
WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WITH YOU, BECK????????????????????
No wonder people run from you screaming and pulling their hair out in frustration and creeped-out-ness!!!!!
What number of war victims reached do you begin to care about the tragedy of war or is it simply, it's not about me so who gives a seriouis sh*t?
Are you capable of caring for victims of the tragedy of war? Victims at all levels?
The issue of cigarette smoking is an important one to the health of people of course. But intersecting it with a discussion of the evil and monstrous violence of war -- seemingly in order to minimize the friggin' significance of the number of victims killed which seems to be what you are doing -- is really callow and callous and offensive.
You are actually conflating exhaling cigarette smoke near someone with droning someone or someones?????????????????
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU???????
Another notch in your belt I guess for being over the top offensive.

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 07, 2013 09:05 PM
You nailed it libby ~ "... it's not about me so who gives a seriouis sh*t? "

Kim Gamble
JULY 07, 2013 09:24 PM
Yeah, Libby, "he's crude and rude, and manly dick's narcissism knows no bounds. The "dude" was a "professional" pig for ten years; now it's just a sickening hobby.
When one rolls in sh*t with THE pig, that person gets dirty, but THE pig just LOVES that sh*t.
previously rated

markinjapan
JULY 07, 2013 09:32 PM
Nothing I have said indicates not caring about the dead, war crimes or anything else. Absolutely nothing. What it says is, while you are busy pointing fingers, there are three more fingers pointing back at you...as the saying goes.
Let me break it down for you. For the whole comparison to work, it is acknowledged that drone strikes kill. The point is, anyone who smokes contributes to death dealing even more. That's right. More.
Now you can call names, type in bold. Jump up and down and turn your pants around. None of that changes the numbers. Tobacco kills. Deny it.
Second hand smoke kills. Deny it.
Those who receive second hand smoke do not choose it. Deny it.
None of that says drone strikes do not happen. It is not a zero sum situation. Both happen. You just arbitrarily overlook or approve of one while attempting to cast blame away on the other. Deny it. Moral outrage at one without moral outrage at both is hypocrisy. Deny it.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 09:42 PM
"Seemingly to minimize violence..."? I never said such a thing. All a decent person needs to do, if they are confused about that, is ask. The indecent dont ask. They just blame. That is the point. One is not exclusive of the other. Your blame game is nonsense unless you blame smokers to a proportionally greater degree that the deaths occur. Smoking kills more. It is a death machine. Where is the blame and outrage? There is room for both. No minimization at all.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 09:45 PM
zzzzZZZZzzzzz ... huh? Was there a revelation in this post?
naaaaa ... some old shit ... a precision weapon that limits the degree of collateral damage is crapped-on by a looney-tune blogger.
Beck's comment is a good one ... and applicable.
Carry-on.

Joisey Shore
JULY 07, 2013 09:46 PM
Are you sure you know what conflating means, Libby? I am not conflating the two. I am telling you that cigarettes/tobacco smoke kill more people annually than drone strikes. These are deaths from cancer. It is not immediate, like a drone strike, but cause is cause, and cancer is not pretty. 50,000 humans die from second hand smoke. They did not choose it. What is wrong with you? 50,000 human beings. Fifty THOUSAND...per year. Over 4000 per month, and those figures are limited to the U.S. So by what standard does unintentional loss of human life by drone any worse than unintentional loss of human life by any other preventable means? PREVENTABLE MEANS. Your moral outrage is false. They are NOT mutually exclusive. Bold type does not make it any more so. Where is your moral outrage about that?

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 09:53 PM
Re: Bill
Radioactive fallout from 1054 nuclear tests conducted by the US between 1945 and 1992 has caused more cancer than second hand smoke. Radioactive particulate never goes away. It gets into everything from milk to corn, to ground water, to bone marrow. 1054 tests conducted, granted not all of them were in the continental US, but most of them were done less than 500 miles from where I live. How do you explain lung cancer in someone who never smoked?
Do you drive a car? Do you live near a freeway? Do you know how much tire rubber you inhale every day? Way more than any second hand smoke you might be exposed to. Out of the 46,000 deaths attributed to heart disease from second hand smoke, how many are clinically proven?
Maybe Obama should just ship lots of cigarettes over there, and save the Hellfire's for the grown-ups.
Given the choice, I'd rather see my kids smoke cigarettes than get vaporized by a Predator drone.
In answer to your question, yes, I do smoke, but none of my children do. Two are adult, and one's in high school.

joebanana
JULY 08, 2013 03:10 AM
You sure you know what bold type means, Bill?

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 08, 2013 03:32 AM
Yeah, I noted that, too, Libby. Cops are theoretically cool under fire, but not manly dick. He's so easily unnerved of late. I guess the thrashing he took on Kim's blog has gotten him off his "game," not that he ever had one.
He's taken to chastising me over the word "nakie." The moron doesn't know that that was Lady Miko's word during her erotic writings pedriod. Nor does he know that her husband was dying of rheumatic heart disease, and I was doing everything in my power to lighten her load, even Skyping with her daily during the last days of his life, may He r.i.p., helping her arrange hospice care and home health professionals to lighten her load.
As he passed, she called me at 2 am my time, and i spoke with her for three hours 'til friends and family arrived. Can You imagine the cretin doing anything similar?
Unlike manly dick, I don't trumpet my virtues. If I see someone in trouble, here, whether friend or foe, I immediately try to help out, whether it concerns job contacts I have in the states, diabetes and cancer resources, etc.
How do I know that mr. dick does not do the same? Simple, the creature is so filled with self-loathing that he can hardly help himself, let alone others

markinjapan
JULY 08, 2013 03:55 AM
Libby, I am drawing a distinction. That is not conflating.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 06:26 AM
Joe Banana gets it. All of that is relevant, if the statistics are accurate. That is precisely the point. Also, Joe, I am not the one pointing fingers saying things like "evil", "creep", etc. Presumably there are lots of things which we contribute to, (again not a single one of you admitted your connection to cigarettes btw), which kill people.
There is no sitting on a high horse with regard to this issue, and calling personal names like three in this thread love to do, and these other things be also true. Libby likes to say creepy, etc. She doesn't even understand the point. I never once said that the death is not a bad thing. I am opposed to war. Always have been. The accusations are false and the arguments are circular. It is hypocritical to charge ANOTHER with these things and also give money to cigarette companies...or the other things you mentioned.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 06:36 AM
Joe, it has nothin to do with your children. Paying cigarette companies money helps them to survive. Cigarette companies are death machines. They deal in death. That has been proved for almost 50 years. Buying cigarettes is how they get paid. Second hand smoke is how 50,000 Americans get cancer annually.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 06:41 AM
You're right, Libby. I am mistaken. I did not mean bold type. I meant typing in all caps. My use of the term "bold type" is entirely incorrect.
Whether typed in bold letters, or capital letters, or in a different color, second hand smoke kills more people annually than drone strikes. It is easy, and maybe you find it fun to point fingers about that, but it appears a bit uncomfortable to realize, once you give it some thought, that you are contributing to a death machine by buying cigarettes also. You have to point a finger back at yourself. There is no way around it.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 07:16 AM
My god what is wrong with Libby and Kim and MarkinJapan! How do they fail to see the dangers of smoking and the complicity of tobacco companies as they drone on and on about drones. Unless you direct your letters to the tobacco people too-- I'd advise keeping the trap shut about pressing injustice and such. It is duly noted that the three of you have kept silent as the ciggarrette outrage sweeps the nation.
;)

fernsy
JULY 08, 2013 01:05 PM
Bill -
Yes, tobacco is a major killer. The leading cause of death in this country.
You say "it is acknowledged that drone strikes kill. The point is, anyone who smokes contributes to death dealing even more. That's right. More."
That's where your argument falls into problems. You wish to argue that Joe B. is worse than Obama's ordering drone strikes because he smokes. A distinction that you're not making here is that a) people who smoke are addicted to nicotine. The tobacco companies are chiefly responsible for the deaths due to tobacco, not those who end up being addicted to cigarettes, an addiction that the tobacco companies carefully cultivate. Thus, to blame Joe B. for his smoking is missing your target. You should be blaming the tobacco companies.
A second distinction which I mentioned above that you're missing is that people who are addicted to smoking have a very hard time quitting because of their addiction. Is Obama addicted to war and assassination? In a sense he is, actually. Does this make him more blameworthy than Joe B. You're damn right it does.
A third is that the money that people who smoke spend to buy their cigarettes does not make them primarily responsible for the deaths that their financial support for the cigarette companies cause. The chief responsibility again lies with the companies, not the consumers.

Dennis Loo
JULY 08, 2013 03:35 PM
This was supposed to be about killing children. By a grown man, with WMD's. Mechanized, industrialized, mass murder, is a sick concept. Cigarettes don't kill children, it takes years to develop cancer, and you don't need cigarettes to do that. I know people who NEVER smoked and died from cancer. St. Judes is full of children with cancer who never smoked, who do you blame for that, Bill? My point is that an adult, using military weaponry to kill children, is the most unforgivable, evil, horrific crime I can think of. Even one child is unacceptable. We put people in cages for years, for possessing a flower. But a man can kill untold numbers of INNOCENT children whether intentionally or not, and we pay him $400,000 a year. That's just sick.

joebanana
JULY 08, 2013 03:37 PM
The patriarchal paradigm is about power and competition. Dragging the cigarette death statistics over to this blog about drone deaths and kill lists Beck is manifesting the win/lose patriarchal paradigm "gotcha" debating not communicating. Eager to continue to play gotcha with whatever emotional reactions he hopes to provoke with his faux-intellectual and faux-rational posturing. Why I try to avoid his writing.
Why else would Mr. Beck introduce this as a kind of competitive and debating point to an entirely different messaging?
A humanist paradigm is about cooperation and partnership, communication and discussion, not sophistry on steroids.
How many of us are not alarmed at deaths due to smoking in this country and world. That does not and should not take away from our horror at the USWarmachine enabled by our tax dollars.
Mr. Beck could have written his own blog about smoking. But to challenge joebanana with his statistics and then cry out "I didn't say anything about minimizing yadda yadda yadda" when people connect the twp dots he wanted connected. Beck got the reaction he wanted. He sets up a creepy bait and then he hopes he will be defended for his faux-innocence of just introducing an interesting angle. bullshit.
It wouldn't have bothered me so much, except that to me if one person is killed, if one innocent person is caged for the duration of his life, that ONE person, that statistic of ONE is horrifying and wrong and MATTERS in a supposedly free but not country, in a supposed democracy but not.
To have a fellow community member at open salon treat statistics as some kind of measure to minimize the depth of evil of war is heinous imho. It is playing gotcha in a macho faux-intellectual game-playing. It is seemingly and disturbingly obtuse to real evil. And it is promoting divisiveness and apologizing for real EVIL.
Hence, my need for the vomit bucket. Seriously. best, libby

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 08, 2013 03:58 PM
Without adding to the smoking vs. drone analogy or expressing my own opinion on the subject of the use of drones I'd like to add a little something that emotionally affects me as a Mom and a grandmother. When we speak of tragedy's in which the focus on "children" being killed as the core of a piece be it here or any other form of broadcast mediums we are, then, primarily focusing on the loss of children of a certain age group. That was the case with the Newtown shootings, here in my state. The use of innocent "children" being killed brought forth a different sympathetic focus on the tragedy, a stronger storyline and tended to elicit ones thoughts to view the tragedy to be more heinous than had they used innocent victims.One broadcast station finally changed their script to be all-inclusive in regard to lives lost. I have two children and two grandchildren. If my son or daughter, one 39 the other 37, were lost in a tragedy of any nature I'd be as devastated as I would be if they were 3, 5 or 8 yrs of age. Every single one of the "innocent victims" lost in 911, Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout all of history were/are someone's children. Can we not lose sight of that as the crime would be no less heinous no matter the age group.

ThroughMyEyes
JULY 08, 2013 05:13 PM
"Creepy bait" is manly dick's forte.

markinjapan
JULY 08, 2013 06:00 PM
Yes it's clear Obama is, unequivocally, a mass homicidalist!

Sean Fenley
JULY 08, 2013 06:12 PM
ditto TME.....well said....

Steel Breeze
JULY 08, 2013 10:04 PM
Through my eyes, Thanks for that, you're absolutely right. My daughter enlisted in the war based on lies, and served two tours in Iraq. I was so pissed off that some recruiter snagged her into this atrocity, I couldn't see straight. Since she's been home, I've forgiven her for the anguish she put me through, I'm just sorry I didn't express my feelings toward GW Bush and his lie based attack on an innocent country, and people. What a sick man he is. Having three children of my own (all grown up, now) the thought of losing any of them is one I won't allow myself. I read an article about a mother in Iraq who's children were playing with other children, when they were blown to pieces. The mother described how she couldn't tell which body parts were her kids, and which were the other children's. I can't even pretend to know how that must have felt. I think reading that traumatized me. My wife's best friend's son came back from there, in body only. They wrecked that poor kid permanently. With so many unanswered questions and more evidence than not that our government had a part in 911, I can't help but hate the evilness we call a "government" with every fiber of my being. Thanks

joebanana
JULY 09, 2013 12:35 AM
Loo, I said, you can't condemn one without condemning both. I oppose both. You can't argue that passive smole with kills more annually, people not choosing to smoke is not a moral outrage, and simultaneously say that drone strikes are. BOTH Dennis. They both are the direct causes of death. If you buy cigarettes, you knowingly support factories of death. Those factories kill more people than the drones. One is just less shocking, but it should not be. It kills more. Buy one more pack of cigarettes and you are paying for the survival of a death factory. Deny that.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 09:39 AM
Libby, I dont fly drones, nor do I smoke. Can you say the same? I am not guilty of anything. I have no "faux innocence." My innocence is firmly intact. That is the fallacy of your finger pointing schtick. The drone program belongs to the CIA, not to me. That is a completely insane accusation.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 09:43 AM
Jesus, Libby, the point is not about smoking necessarily. The point is about finger pointing. The point is about who is declaring whom guilty. Joebanana got it. If you drive a car, you contribute. If you live near a road, you are a victim to a degree. There are a number of things that we ALL do which do harm. The various things have varying degrees of necessity. MOst of us drive, and use power from power companies. We can afford to be greener, and we probably do that to varung degrees. We ALL use computers. That makes a lot of pollution. Computers are also made with exploitative labor practices...almost entirely. If there are cases where they are not, I'd like to know about it. We all buy them. We contribute. The minerals used to make the screens come from a place where there are massive civil liberty violations.
NOW, if you say that you are nt connected to this GLOBAL process, then you are the one maintaining some sort of "faux innocence." We are all complicit to some degree. The POINT is, pointing fingers in this regard is hypocritical. It is also a notch more if you smoke which is a COMPLETELY unnecessary activity. It has no necessary purpose whatsoever. Driving has some. Computer ownership and use has some. Building roads, etc...some. Smoking....absolutely none. Again, the POINT is....finger pointing is hypocrisy. Ain't no faux innocence here, Libby. Stop pointing fingers without declaring YOUR OWN culpability.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 09:50 AM
Dennis Loo, you can, AS I DID, leave out the numbers of addicted smokers from the stats. The number for ALL people killed by smoking is nearly half a million per year.
Look closely Dennis Loo, I said "second hand smoke." Your addiction angle is entirely irrelevant there. Non smokers are not addicted. Non smokers don't buy cigarettes. Non smokers are innocent bystanders in this equation. Dennis, you either missed the fact that I said, "second hand smoke", or you intentionally conflated that with the numbers for ALL smoking. The distinction is important and you did not address that.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 10:01 AM
BillBeck: If people smoked more and blew hot air less, we'd be better off. An LAPD person who hates smokers as much as murderers. What a prince. I bet you would send smokers to Guantanomo if you had the choice. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between severity of wrongdoing. The LAPD now jails and terrorizes those who use non threatening speech . You should re-apply.

fernsy
JULY 09, 2013 10:43 AM
Fernsy, what is "an LAPD person?"
What do I have to do with Guantanamo? What does the LAPD have to do with Guantanamo? What does smoking have to do with Guantanamo? What do drones have to do with Guantanamo?
Fernsy, you have no say on what sort of person I am. People are people. Respect that.
No, I am not royalty. I deplore the concept.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 11:27 AM
Oh, Fernsy, I don't hate smokers. I said I dont smoke. I hate cigarette companies. I'll say that. I never said, and you may not say for me, that I hate smokers. That is simply false. But then again, that does not seem to matter to you.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 11:29 AM
Fernsy, you mentioned having been a neocon yourself. I'll bet you were a neocon FAR more recently than I was a cop. Now, if we apply the same sort of judgement to you, again, "3 fingers pointing back at you", you are MUCH more culpable than what you call an "LAPD person."
Neocons opened Guantanamo's prison. Neocons sent them to Guantanamo. LAPD did not send anyone to Guantanamo. If you think I am connected to that, when I was a cop there YEARS before Guantanamo's prison opened...how in the hell do you skip over yourself as responsible FIRST, neocon person.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 11:35 AM
Bill: The severity of wrongdoing part was ignored. I wish I was the neocon you spoke of rather than some power free sod-- who thought the Iraq war was justified and that the left were all nuts etc. That's as far as that went, feller. You taking that out of context, and then attempting to assign false guilt by using deception and obfuscation, would get you a job at the LAPD's Threat Management Unit, or with the Lavely and Singer lawfirm.. That is career advice. You are welcome, in advance.
Reference to Guantanomo was to express that you don't seem to have the capacity to see gradations between wrongdoings. Genocide and bad habits are interchangeable? Some rule where all evils must be noted or none can be brought up? I now think you might be a satirist or something because your comments are so far out that it's approaching performance art. I am biased against LAPD persons and your lack of logic, and your disingenuous ways reminds me of some of them. NOT ALL!!! OF COURSE. Now, I go smoke. I must be a sociopath cause it won't make me feel responsible for mass murder etc.

fernsy
JULY 09, 2013 11:58 AM
Bill, you didn't happen to be employed at LAPD during the Rampart scandal, did you? That could turn into a whole new post, as I have some rather scathing opinions about that whole situation that wouldn't be appropriate for this blog, or any other for that matter. The Los Angeles Superior court judges however, are the lowest life form to ever pollute the human race. These things don't even qualify as "human", and to refer to them as "honorable" is absurd. All of them are worse than the worst "criminals" they sit in judgement of. They act as if they're performing a "service" to society, but they're actually a menace. Google SBx2.11, it's about the bribes they take from LA county, don't disclose, and don't recuse themselves in county involved cases. They lobbied for, and got retroactive immunity (ex post facto) and the continuance of the illegal payments, which come to $57,000 annually. They are the most DISHONORABLE vermin to ever slither out of the sewers of this state.

joebanana
JULY 09, 2013 12:25 PM
Fersy writes as a criticism to Beck "you don't seem to have the capacity to see gradations between wrongdoings."
You mean like the use of precision weapons vs. dumb-bombs/?
Ah yes. Good point. (but for what? or whom?)

Joisey Shore
JULY 09, 2013 04:25 PM
Joebanana,
I was employed by the LAPD between 24 and 19 years ago. I don't know when that Rampart scandal occurred. I'm guessing that this particular scandal happened some time more recently.
I also was not employed by the Los Angeles Superior Court, nor was I ever a judge myself. I don't see how either of those remotely touch on any act, decision, or philosophy I ever held. That is a very interesting fishing expedition though.
Let me ask you a similar question with the logic of guilt by tangential connection. When was the last time that you BOUGHT a pack of cigarettes? (Blasé-blasé....evil...scum..yada, yada, yada....cigarette companies directly cause death.) When was the last time you gave them some money?

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 04:39 PM
Fernsy,
First of all, what is happening at Guantanamo is bad, but it is not genocide.
Second, bad habits are not the issue. I cite the cigarette companies as the malefactors. Selling cigarettes for profit is not a "bad habit." It is an intentional business. Furthermore, killing 450,000 people in the U.S.
Worldwide...lets take a peek:
Tobacco facts
Tobacco use is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced.
There are more than one billion smokers in the world.
Globally, use of tobacco products is increasing, although it is decreasing in high-income countries.
Almost half of the world's children breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke.
The epidemic is shifting to the developing world.
More than 80% of the world's smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.
Tobacco use kills 5.4 million people a year - an average of one person every six seconds - and accounts for one in 10 adult deaths worldwide.
Tobacco kills up to half of all users.
It is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of deaths in the world.
Because there is a lag of several years between when people start using tobacco and when their health suffers, the epidemic of disease and death has just begun.
100 million deaths were caused by tobacco in the 20th century. If current trends continue, there will be up to one billion deaths in the 21st century.
Unchecked, tobacco-related deaths will increase to more than eight million a year by 2030, and 80% of those deaths will occur in the developing world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This concludes with the speculation that over one BILLION deaths will occur worldwide from tobacco use in the 21st century. Are you sure you want to talk "genocide?" Did you say something about "differentiating between the severity..."? Cigarette companies SELL a product that will kill over ONE BILLION people in the 21st century. That is rather severe. Ever hear of a boycott?

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 04:51 PM
Look, the same concept applies to diamonds. I am sure you have heard of the atrocities in places like Sierra Leone, and others. Miners and even children are made to work in brutal conditions, paid next to nothing, and punished severely, including having limbs lopped off, and even executed. As a result, an industry of conflict free diamonds has arisen. I am sure you have heard of it. Supporting the diamond industry MAY support killers, if you are not careful where you get your diamonds from. This same logic applies to a great number of things. I have no figures on the numbers of people maimed or killed annually, but the concern is a public issue. Cigarette use is analogous. It is only easier to hide because it involves smoke and air. Again, pointing fingers is the problem. I am not saying that cigarettes are the only problem. I am saying that cigarette companies are big killers. Really, really big killers.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 05:12 PM
The point is : deflection.
Post any number of stats or facts on OS and joes like Beck or Frank will jump in and deflect. That's their miserable lot in life.
Defending, minimising, deflecting.
What an extraordinarily useless way to spend your time.
Everyone knows cigarettes are deadly.
Get over it.
This post is about drone strikes.

Kim Gamble
JULY 11, 2013 02:08 AM
Whoops ! Hope I wasn't "harasing" you there Bill.

Kim Gamble
JULY 11, 2013 02:11 AM
Gamble, at the risk of making this personal, you show the amazingly consistent ability to misunderstand.
I can't deflect or minimize whole condeming both. Also, Gamble, a condemnation is not a defense. Your point is rather silly.
I said, it is inconsistent to condemn one and not condemn both. That is not a defense, Gamble.
Good catch on the typo though. Talk about a miserable lot in life.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:17 AM
{while} condemning.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:18 AM
Gamble, the post is about drone strikes. The title is "Obama the child killer." The drones are not exclusively killing children. The post highlights killing of children with its title. The point is to express outrage at the child killing aspect.
It is therefore relevant to compare the connection to "child killing" of second hand smoke. It kills exponentially more children annually than drone strikes. That is a simple matter of fact. The post is not merely about drone strikes, Gamble. It is also about killing children. That broadens the subject quite significantly.
It is understandable tha you would miss that since you have demonstrated missing points so frequently in the past. Again, Gamble, check the title.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:23 AM
Also Gamble, check the first line of my first comment. It is about killing children.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:24 AM
"Every drone strike Obama signs off on, has the potential of killing more than it's intended target, and most often does. "
Here Gamble. Since you're something of a simpleton, I'll give you a lesson. The above quote is from the post. Read it. Comprehend it. It talks about a drone strike's POTENTIAL of killing off more than its intended target.
Let me line up how this is directly analogous for you, Gamble. Replace the drone's intended target for the actual smoker. The unintended recipient of the smoke is the "more than the intended target" portion. The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION compiles statistics for how this trend is increasingly lethal...including children. This same organization says that 50,000 deaths occur in the U.S. alone annually.
I know you're not one for logic, Gamble, but this is directly analogous. Unintended targets resulting in death. Not addicted smokers....UNINTENDED TARGETS.
"Every drone strike Obama signs off on, has the potential of killing more than it's intended target, and most often does. "
Every {CIGARETTE} {cigarette buyer buys} has the potential of killing more than its intended target...{and does to the tune of 50,000 Americans annually.}

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:39 AM
Whoops! I hope I wasn't "harasing" you there, Kim.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:41 AM
Then on Ilya Shabat's blog, a month later, he claims:
beck aug 8, 2013; 10:44 PM:
On the post that you referenced, Joe Banana, even he got it. He used the analogy of living near a freeway and driving a car, which creates pollution. It does not kill as many, and he gave no statistics, but it works essentially the same way. I had TOTALLY forgotten about Joe Banana's post. You're right. But the logic holds. EVEN JOE made a similar analogy.
which is a complete fabrication as Joe's responses indicate:
"Here's a stat for you Bill. As an American citizen, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by our own government than in a "terrorist" attack. Aspirin kills an average of 7000 people a year. Cigarettes are different than getting blown to smithereens by flying death machines for something you had no involvement in. And, smoking is a choice." joebanana july 07, 2013 05:57 PM
and
"This was supposed to be about killing children. By a grown man, with WMD's. Mechanized, industrialized, mass murder, is a sick concept. Cigarettes don't kill children, it takes years to develop cancer, and you don't need cigarettes to do that. I know people who NEVER smoked and died from cancer. St. Judes is full of children with cancer who never smoked, who do you blame for that, Bill? My point is that an adult, using military weaponry to kill children, is the most unforgivable, evil, horrific crime I can think of. Even one child is unacceptable. We put people in cages for years, for possessing a flower. But a man can kill untold numbers of INNOCENT children whether intentionally or not, and we pay him $400,000 a year. That's just sick."
joebanana July 08, 2013 03:37 PM
Out and out lies; AND if one chooses to look deeper, I'm sure there are more here and elsewhere - the guys not only aracist, bully, misogynist, but also a compulsive liar.
It's not mentioned in the mainstream media at all. It's not talked about around the dinner table much. It seems to be a taboo subject, but it's a reality. With no remorse no less. Not one or two children, not thirty or forty, hundreds, maybe thousands of infants, babies, toddlers, kids, children, youngsters. And there's no outrage because we've been denied the truth for so long, the only place it's mentioned is in foreign media. Our government kills journalists that get too close to the reality of what we're not supposed to see. The irony is that the biggest threat to liberty, freedom, and life, is the people we elected to be our "representatives". Those same people who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution. That act provides no choice. To violate the supreme law of this land, is the highest dishonor, the worst crime, that can be perpetrated. Aside from killing children. Every drone strike Obama signs off on, has the potential of killing more than it's intended target, and most often does. This "war" isn't about freedom, what the attacks of 911 started our government is finishing. Every "extremist" killed in these drone strikes, produces a family of anti-American sentiment. G.W. Bush is a wanted man. There are arrest warrants for him around the world. And as soon as Obama is out of office, there will be arrest warrants for him too. Harboring war criminals isn't what the America I grew up in does.
Camel cigarettes used to use Joe Camel to sell cigarettes to kids. Tobacco kills. I'm sure you're aware. The America I grew up in went after the tobacco companies because of how many people were killed with cigarette smoke. It seems that it is a carcinogen. That means it causes cancer.
The hook was that they used cartoons like Joe Camel, and other things which lure kids, and sell the idea of smoking to them. A clown with a cigar in the mouth is fairly typical of the sort of method used to attract kids to the cigarette companies which dealt death. Lots, and lots, and lots of death.
"Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women"
That is a lot of death.
Then there is second hand smoke. It is listed as an entirely separate category.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke—sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke—causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1
Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart disease.1,9,10"
That is a lot of death too, and that is just second hand smoke.
Obama smokes. Your clown avatar smokes. Do you smoke? The deaths listed above are annual figures. Let me know when the drone strikes get to that level. Tobacco, especially sold with cartoons, is a child killer.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 02:03 PM
[r] joe, every human life should matter to all of us within the human family.
93,000 men, women and children are dead in Syria because the US and greedy vulture nations decided they wanted to exploit the Arab Spring in Syria and co-opt that protest, legitimate, for regime change and make it deadly, deadly, deadly for the citizens of that country. Enter CIA and streams of foreign jihadists including al Qaeda stage right. 2 years we have been enabling that proxy war but our media won't focus on that. This is Obama's Iraq.
More Syrians will be killed, many more soon because of the "spreading guns to the jihadists for peace" surreal travesty by the Obama regime and again the vulture like crony countries exploiting the veneer of humanitarianism which is the most cynical and evil of lies. Whatever country we decide to "help" becomes a living hell for the citizens there.
We are a nation of amoral zombies who are accessories to mass murder and genocide. Vietnam taught us nothing. Iraq taught us nothing. We become blinder and more callous with each passing decade. Willfully blind.
In Syria the Alawites, Christians, Shiites have already been hunted down and more will die because we are siding now with the Sunnis as frenemies so the US/NATO warmachine will wrap up the Syrian war so they can go after Iran and then Russia and China. What's a genocide or two when the one percent want more geopolitical power and resources.
Diplomacy, ethics, morality circled the bowl as far as faux-civilized western industrial nations are concerned.
There are so many more black ops dirty operations we don't even know of. We are on the side of authoritarian anti-citizen regimes all over the world. Spreading democracy is such bullshit.
The South American leaders are reeling from the US and cronies commandeering the Morales plane from Moscow the other day, forcing it to stay overnight in Austria, in case it was hiding Snowden. Might makes right in this world and there is a mafia coalition of country bullies led by the good old USA. Snowden has managed to show us just how tightly bonded these amoral countries are.
HOWEVER -- don't you know, though, Joe, that you must not hold Obama accountable for anything, even "baby-killing"?
I can't begin to comment on the ridiculous whatever the hell it is posed by the first commenter. I would need a vomit bucket to focus on it.
best, libby

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 07, 2013 02:32 PM
Tobacco kills.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 05:28 PM
Here's a stat for you Bill. As an American citizen, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by our own government than in a "terrorist" attack. Aspirin kills an average of 7000 people a year. Cigarettes are different than getting blown to smithereens by flying death machines for something you had no involvement in. And, smoking is a choice.

joebanana
JULY 07, 2013 05:57 PM
I notice that you did not answer the question. It is an important question. Do you smoke?
Smoking is a choice, to a degree. But, the smoking companies get kids addicted. This has been documented and proved in court. As a complete parallel structure regarding choice, people have been compelled to smoke. Efforts have been taken to mitigate that. Also, passive, or second hand smoke is not a choice. our term, "blown away" is quite interesting in this context. Smoke gets blown toward, if you will. That blowing smoke, "blows away", to use your term, 50,000 adults per year in the U.S. 50,000 who presumably are not choosing to smoke. That is a lot of blowing away...as it were.
Now, it has been offered as a theory that voting for someone makes them guilty, by extension, of blowing people away with drone. Any person who smokes presumably buys cigarettes or cigars. Buying them supports organizations which kill. This smoke is the direct cause of cancer, as the studies show. Direct. On top of that, anyone smoking in public "blows" smoke at people, which contains lethal potential. 50,000 people per year. Smoking is legal and so is voting. A life is a life. Drone strikes and cancer from second hand smoke are both INvoluntary. So.......what?

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 06:22 PM
LET ME KNOW WHEN THE DRONE STRIKES GET TO THAT LEVEL??????
WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WITH YOU, BECK????????????????????
No wonder people run from you screaming and pulling their hair out in frustration and creeped-out-ness!!!!!
What number of war victims reached do you begin to care about the tragedy of war or is it simply, it's not about me so who gives a seriouis sh*t?
Are you capable of caring for victims of the tragedy of war? Victims at all levels?
The issue of cigarette smoking is an important one to the health of people of course. But intersecting it with a discussion of the evil and monstrous violence of war -- seemingly in order to minimize the friggin' significance of the number of victims killed which seems to be what you are doing -- is really callow and callous and offensive.
You are actually conflating exhaling cigarette smoke near someone with droning someone or someones?????????????????
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU???????
Another notch in your belt I guess for being over the top offensive.

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 07, 2013 09:05 PM
You nailed it libby ~ "... it's not about me so who gives a seriouis sh*t? "

Kim Gamble
JULY 07, 2013 09:24 PM
Yeah, Libby, "he's crude and rude, and manly dick's narcissism knows no bounds. The "dude" was a "professional" pig for ten years; now it's just a sickening hobby.
When one rolls in sh*t with THE pig, that person gets dirty, but THE pig just LOVES that sh*t.
previously rated

markinjapan
JULY 07, 2013 09:32 PM
Nothing I have said indicates not caring about the dead, war crimes or anything else. Absolutely nothing. What it says is, while you are busy pointing fingers, there are three more fingers pointing back at you...as the saying goes.
Let me break it down for you. For the whole comparison to work, it is acknowledged that drone strikes kill. The point is, anyone who smokes contributes to death dealing even more. That's right. More.
Now you can call names, type in bold. Jump up and down and turn your pants around. None of that changes the numbers. Tobacco kills. Deny it.
Second hand smoke kills. Deny it.
Those who receive second hand smoke do not choose it. Deny it.
None of that says drone strikes do not happen. It is not a zero sum situation. Both happen. You just arbitrarily overlook or approve of one while attempting to cast blame away on the other. Deny it. Moral outrage at one without moral outrage at both is hypocrisy. Deny it.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 09:42 PM
"Seemingly to minimize violence..."? I never said such a thing. All a decent person needs to do, if they are confused about that, is ask. The indecent dont ask. They just blame. That is the point. One is not exclusive of the other. Your blame game is nonsense unless you blame smokers to a proportionally greater degree that the deaths occur. Smoking kills more. It is a death machine. Where is the blame and outrage? There is room for both. No minimization at all.

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 09:45 PM
zzzzZZZZzzzzz ... huh? Was there a revelation in this post?
naaaaa ... some old shit ... a precision weapon that limits the degree of collateral damage is crapped-on by a looney-tune blogger.
Beck's comment is a good one ... and applicable.
Carry-on.

Joisey Shore
JULY 07, 2013 09:46 PM
Are you sure you know what conflating means, Libby? I am not conflating the two. I am telling you that cigarettes/tobacco smoke kill more people annually than drone strikes. These are deaths from cancer. It is not immediate, like a drone strike, but cause is cause, and cancer is not pretty. 50,000 humans die from second hand smoke. They did not choose it. What is wrong with you? 50,000 human beings. Fifty THOUSAND...per year. Over 4000 per month, and those figures are limited to the U.S. So by what standard does unintentional loss of human life by drone any worse than unintentional loss of human life by any other preventable means? PREVENTABLE MEANS. Your moral outrage is false. They are NOT mutually exclusive. Bold type does not make it any more so. Where is your moral outrage about that?

Bill Beck
JULY 07, 2013 09:53 PM
Re: Bill
Radioactive fallout from 1054 nuclear tests conducted by the US between 1945 and 1992 has caused more cancer than second hand smoke. Radioactive particulate never goes away. It gets into everything from milk to corn, to ground water, to bone marrow. 1054 tests conducted, granted not all of them were in the continental US, but most of them were done less than 500 miles from where I live. How do you explain lung cancer in someone who never smoked?
Do you drive a car? Do you live near a freeway? Do you know how much tire rubber you inhale every day? Way more than any second hand smoke you might be exposed to. Out of the 46,000 deaths attributed to heart disease from second hand smoke, how many are clinically proven?
Maybe Obama should just ship lots of cigarettes over there, and save the Hellfire's for the grown-ups.
Given the choice, I'd rather see my kids smoke cigarettes than get vaporized by a Predator drone.
In answer to your question, yes, I do smoke, but none of my children do. Two are adult, and one's in high school.

joebanana
JULY 08, 2013 03:10 AM
You sure you know what bold type means, Bill?

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 08, 2013 03:32 AM
Yeah, I noted that, too, Libby. Cops are theoretically cool under fire, but not manly dick. He's so easily unnerved of late. I guess the thrashing he took on Kim's blog has gotten him off his "game," not that he ever had one.
He's taken to chastising me over the word "nakie." The moron doesn't know that that was Lady Miko's word during her erotic writings pedriod. Nor does he know that her husband was dying of rheumatic heart disease, and I was doing everything in my power to lighten her load, even Skyping with her daily during the last days of his life, may He r.i.p., helping her arrange hospice care and home health professionals to lighten her load.
As he passed, she called me at 2 am my time, and i spoke with her for three hours 'til friends and family arrived. Can You imagine the cretin doing anything similar?
Unlike manly dick, I don't trumpet my virtues. If I see someone in trouble, here, whether friend or foe, I immediately try to help out, whether it concerns job contacts I have in the states, diabetes and cancer resources, etc.
How do I know that mr. dick does not do the same? Simple, the creature is so filled with self-loathing that he can hardly help himself, let alone others

markinjapan
JULY 08, 2013 03:55 AM
Libby, I am drawing a distinction. That is not conflating.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 06:26 AM
Joe Banana gets it. All of that is relevant, if the statistics are accurate. That is precisely the point. Also, Joe, I am not the one pointing fingers saying things like "evil", "creep", etc. Presumably there are lots of things which we contribute to, (again not a single one of you admitted your connection to cigarettes btw), which kill people.
There is no sitting on a high horse with regard to this issue, and calling personal names like three in this thread love to do, and these other things be also true. Libby likes to say creepy, etc. She doesn't even understand the point. I never once said that the death is not a bad thing. I am opposed to war. Always have been. The accusations are false and the arguments are circular. It is hypocritical to charge ANOTHER with these things and also give money to cigarette companies...or the other things you mentioned.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 06:36 AM
Joe, it has nothin to do with your children. Paying cigarette companies money helps them to survive. Cigarette companies are death machines. They deal in death. That has been proved for almost 50 years. Buying cigarettes is how they get paid. Second hand smoke is how 50,000 Americans get cancer annually.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 06:41 AM
You're right, Libby. I am mistaken. I did not mean bold type. I meant typing in all caps. My use of the term "bold type" is entirely incorrect.
Whether typed in bold letters, or capital letters, or in a different color, second hand smoke kills more people annually than drone strikes. It is easy, and maybe you find it fun to point fingers about that, but it appears a bit uncomfortable to realize, once you give it some thought, that you are contributing to a death machine by buying cigarettes also. You have to point a finger back at yourself. There is no way around it.

Bill Beck
JULY 08, 2013 07:16 AM
My god what is wrong with Libby and Kim and MarkinJapan! How do they fail to see the dangers of smoking and the complicity of tobacco companies as they drone on and on about drones. Unless you direct your letters to the tobacco people too-- I'd advise keeping the trap shut about pressing injustice and such. It is duly noted that the three of you have kept silent as the ciggarrette outrage sweeps the nation.
;)

fernsy
JULY 08, 2013 01:05 PM
Bill -
Yes, tobacco is a major killer. The leading cause of death in this country.
You say "it is acknowledged that drone strikes kill. The point is, anyone who smokes contributes to death dealing even more. That's right. More."
That's where your argument falls into problems. You wish to argue that Joe B. is worse than Obama's ordering drone strikes because he smokes. A distinction that you're not making here is that a) people who smoke are addicted to nicotine. The tobacco companies are chiefly responsible for the deaths due to tobacco, not those who end up being addicted to cigarettes, an addiction that the tobacco companies carefully cultivate. Thus, to blame Joe B. for his smoking is missing your target. You should be blaming the tobacco companies.
A second distinction which I mentioned above that you're missing is that people who are addicted to smoking have a very hard time quitting because of their addiction. Is Obama addicted to war and assassination? In a sense he is, actually. Does this make him more blameworthy than Joe B. You're damn right it does.
A third is that the money that people who smoke spend to buy their cigarettes does not make them primarily responsible for the deaths that their financial support for the cigarette companies cause. The chief responsibility again lies with the companies, not the consumers.

Dennis Loo
JULY 08, 2013 03:35 PM
This was supposed to be about killing children. By a grown man, with WMD's. Mechanized, industrialized, mass murder, is a sick concept. Cigarettes don't kill children, it takes years to develop cancer, and you don't need cigarettes to do that. I know people who NEVER smoked and died from cancer. St. Judes is full of children with cancer who never smoked, who do you blame for that, Bill? My point is that an adult, using military weaponry to kill children, is the most unforgivable, evil, horrific crime I can think of. Even one child is unacceptable. We put people in cages for years, for possessing a flower. But a man can kill untold numbers of INNOCENT children whether intentionally or not, and we pay him $400,000 a year. That's just sick.

joebanana
JULY 08, 2013 03:37 PM
The patriarchal paradigm is about power and competition. Dragging the cigarette death statistics over to this blog about drone deaths and kill lists Beck is manifesting the win/lose patriarchal paradigm "gotcha" debating not communicating. Eager to continue to play gotcha with whatever emotional reactions he hopes to provoke with his faux-intellectual and faux-rational posturing. Why I try to avoid his writing.
Why else would Mr. Beck introduce this as a kind of competitive and debating point to an entirely different messaging?
A humanist paradigm is about cooperation and partnership, communication and discussion, not sophistry on steroids.
How many of us are not alarmed at deaths due to smoking in this country and world. That does not and should not take away from our horror at the USWarmachine enabled by our tax dollars.
Mr. Beck could have written his own blog about smoking. But to challenge joebanana with his statistics and then cry out "I didn't say anything about minimizing yadda yadda yadda" when people connect the twp dots he wanted connected. Beck got the reaction he wanted. He sets up a creepy bait and then he hopes he will be defended for his faux-innocence of just introducing an interesting angle. bullshit.
It wouldn't have bothered me so much, except that to me if one person is killed, if one innocent person is caged for the duration of his life, that ONE person, that statistic of ONE is horrifying and wrong and MATTERS in a supposedly free but not country, in a supposed democracy but not.
To have a fellow community member at open salon treat statistics as some kind of measure to minimize the depth of evil of war is heinous imho. It is playing gotcha in a macho faux-intellectual game-playing. It is seemingly and disturbingly obtuse to real evil. And it is promoting divisiveness and apologizing for real EVIL.
Hence, my need for the vomit bucket. Seriously. best, libby

libbyliberalnyc
JULY 08, 2013 03:58 PM
Without adding to the smoking vs. drone analogy or expressing my own opinion on the subject of the use of drones I'd like to add a little something that emotionally affects me as a Mom and a grandmother. When we speak of tragedy's in which the focus on "children" being killed as the core of a piece be it here or any other form of broadcast mediums we are, then, primarily focusing on the loss of children of a certain age group. That was the case with the Newtown shootings, here in my state. The use of innocent "children" being killed brought forth a different sympathetic focus on the tragedy, a stronger storyline and tended to elicit ones thoughts to view the tragedy to be more heinous than had they used innocent victims.One broadcast station finally changed their script to be all-inclusive in regard to lives lost. I have two children and two grandchildren. If my son or daughter, one 39 the other 37, were lost in a tragedy of any nature I'd be as devastated as I would be if they were 3, 5 or 8 yrs of age. Every single one of the "innocent victims" lost in 911, Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout all of history were/are someone's children. Can we not lose sight of that as the crime would be no less heinous no matter the age group.

ThroughMyEyes
JULY 08, 2013 05:13 PM
"Creepy bait" is manly dick's forte.

markinjapan
JULY 08, 2013 06:00 PM
Yes it's clear Obama is, unequivocally, a mass homicidalist!

Sean Fenley
JULY 08, 2013 06:12 PM
ditto TME.....well said....

Steel Breeze
JULY 08, 2013 10:04 PM
Through my eyes, Thanks for that, you're absolutely right. My daughter enlisted in the war based on lies, and served two tours in Iraq. I was so pissed off that some recruiter snagged her into this atrocity, I couldn't see straight. Since she's been home, I've forgiven her for the anguish she put me through, I'm just sorry I didn't express my feelings toward GW Bush and his lie based attack on an innocent country, and people. What a sick man he is. Having three children of my own (all grown up, now) the thought of losing any of them is one I won't allow myself. I read an article about a mother in Iraq who's children were playing with other children, when they were blown to pieces. The mother described how she couldn't tell which body parts were her kids, and which were the other children's. I can't even pretend to know how that must have felt. I think reading that traumatized me. My wife's best friend's son came back from there, in body only. They wrecked that poor kid permanently. With so many unanswered questions and more evidence than not that our government had a part in 911, I can't help but hate the evilness we call a "government" with every fiber of my being. Thanks

joebanana
JULY 09, 2013 12:35 AM
Loo, I said, you can't condemn one without condemning both. I oppose both. You can't argue that passive smole with kills more annually, people not choosing to smoke is not a moral outrage, and simultaneously say that drone strikes are. BOTH Dennis. They both are the direct causes of death. If you buy cigarettes, you knowingly support factories of death. Those factories kill more people than the drones. One is just less shocking, but it should not be. It kills more. Buy one more pack of cigarettes and you are paying for the survival of a death factory. Deny that.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 09:39 AM
Libby, I dont fly drones, nor do I smoke. Can you say the same? I am not guilty of anything. I have no "faux innocence." My innocence is firmly intact. That is the fallacy of your finger pointing schtick. The drone program belongs to the CIA, not to me. That is a completely insane accusation.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 09:43 AM
Jesus, Libby, the point is not about smoking necessarily. The point is about finger pointing. The point is about who is declaring whom guilty. Joebanana got it. If you drive a car, you contribute. If you live near a road, you are a victim to a degree. There are a number of things that we ALL do which do harm. The various things have varying degrees of necessity. MOst of us drive, and use power from power companies. We can afford to be greener, and we probably do that to varung degrees. We ALL use computers. That makes a lot of pollution. Computers are also made with exploitative labor practices...almost entirely. If there are cases where they are not, I'd like to know about it. We all buy them. We contribute. The minerals used to make the screens come from a place where there are massive civil liberty violations.
NOW, if you say that you are nt connected to this GLOBAL process, then you are the one maintaining some sort of "faux innocence." We are all complicit to some degree. The POINT is, pointing fingers in this regard is hypocritical. It is also a notch more if you smoke which is a COMPLETELY unnecessary activity. It has no necessary purpose whatsoever. Driving has some. Computer ownership and use has some. Building roads, etc...some. Smoking....absolutely none. Again, the POINT is....finger pointing is hypocrisy. Ain't no faux innocence here, Libby. Stop pointing fingers without declaring YOUR OWN culpability.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 09:50 AM
Dennis Loo, you can, AS I DID, leave out the numbers of addicted smokers from the stats. The number for ALL people killed by smoking is nearly half a million per year.
Look closely Dennis Loo, I said "second hand smoke." Your addiction angle is entirely irrelevant there. Non smokers are not addicted. Non smokers don't buy cigarettes. Non smokers are innocent bystanders in this equation. Dennis, you either missed the fact that I said, "second hand smoke", or you intentionally conflated that with the numbers for ALL smoking. The distinction is important and you did not address that.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 10:01 AM
BillBeck: If people smoked more and blew hot air less, we'd be better off. An LAPD person who hates smokers as much as murderers. What a prince. I bet you would send smokers to Guantanomo if you had the choice. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between severity of wrongdoing. The LAPD now jails and terrorizes those who use non threatening speech . You should re-apply.

fernsy
JULY 09, 2013 10:43 AM
Fernsy, what is "an LAPD person?"
What do I have to do with Guantanamo? What does the LAPD have to do with Guantanamo? What does smoking have to do with Guantanamo? What do drones have to do with Guantanamo?
Fernsy, you have no say on what sort of person I am. People are people. Respect that.
No, I am not royalty. I deplore the concept.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 11:27 AM
Oh, Fernsy, I don't hate smokers. I said I dont smoke. I hate cigarette companies. I'll say that. I never said, and you may not say for me, that I hate smokers. That is simply false. But then again, that does not seem to matter to you.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 11:29 AM
Fernsy, you mentioned having been a neocon yourself. I'll bet you were a neocon FAR more recently than I was a cop. Now, if we apply the same sort of judgement to you, again, "3 fingers pointing back at you", you are MUCH more culpable than what you call an "LAPD person."
Neocons opened Guantanamo's prison. Neocons sent them to Guantanamo. LAPD did not send anyone to Guantanamo. If you think I am connected to that, when I was a cop there YEARS before Guantanamo's prison opened...how in the hell do you skip over yourself as responsible FIRST, neocon person.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 11:35 AM
Bill: The severity of wrongdoing part was ignored. I wish I was the neocon you spoke of rather than some power free sod-- who thought the Iraq war was justified and that the left were all nuts etc. That's as far as that went, feller. You taking that out of context, and then attempting to assign false guilt by using deception and obfuscation, would get you a job at the LAPD's Threat Management Unit, or with the Lavely and Singer lawfirm.. That is career advice. You are welcome, in advance.
Reference to Guantanomo was to express that you don't seem to have the capacity to see gradations between wrongdoings. Genocide and bad habits are interchangeable? Some rule where all evils must be noted or none can be brought up? I now think you might be a satirist or something because your comments are so far out that it's approaching performance art. I am biased against LAPD persons and your lack of logic, and your disingenuous ways reminds me of some of them. NOT ALL!!! OF COURSE. Now, I go smoke. I must be a sociopath cause it won't make me feel responsible for mass murder etc.

fernsy
JULY 09, 2013 11:58 AM
Bill, you didn't happen to be employed at LAPD during the Rampart scandal, did you? That could turn into a whole new post, as I have some rather scathing opinions about that whole situation that wouldn't be appropriate for this blog, or any other for that matter. The Los Angeles Superior court judges however, are the lowest life form to ever pollute the human race. These things don't even qualify as "human", and to refer to them as "honorable" is absurd. All of them are worse than the worst "criminals" they sit in judgement of. They act as if they're performing a "service" to society, but they're actually a menace. Google SBx2.11, it's about the bribes they take from LA county, don't disclose, and don't recuse themselves in county involved cases. They lobbied for, and got retroactive immunity (ex post facto) and the continuance of the illegal payments, which come to $57,000 annually. They are the most DISHONORABLE vermin to ever slither out of the sewers of this state.

joebanana
JULY 09, 2013 12:25 PM
Fersy writes as a criticism to Beck "you don't seem to have the capacity to see gradations between wrongdoings."
You mean like the use of precision weapons vs. dumb-bombs/?
Ah yes. Good point. (but for what? or whom?)

Joisey Shore
JULY 09, 2013 04:25 PM
Joebanana,
I was employed by the LAPD between 24 and 19 years ago. I don't know when that Rampart scandal occurred. I'm guessing that this particular scandal happened some time more recently.
I also was not employed by the Los Angeles Superior Court, nor was I ever a judge myself. I don't see how either of those remotely touch on any act, decision, or philosophy I ever held. That is a very interesting fishing expedition though.
Let me ask you a similar question with the logic of guilt by tangential connection. When was the last time that you BOUGHT a pack of cigarettes? (Blasé-blasé....evil...scum..yada, yada, yada....cigarette companies directly cause death.) When was the last time you gave them some money?

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 04:39 PM
Fernsy,
First of all, what is happening at Guantanamo is bad, but it is not genocide.
Second, bad habits are not the issue. I cite the cigarette companies as the malefactors. Selling cigarettes for profit is not a "bad habit." It is an intentional business. Furthermore, killing 450,000 people in the U.S.
Worldwide...lets take a peek:
Tobacco facts
Tobacco use is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced.
There are more than one billion smokers in the world.
Globally, use of tobacco products is increasing, although it is decreasing in high-income countries.
Almost half of the world's children breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke.
The epidemic is shifting to the developing world.
More than 80% of the world's smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.
Tobacco use kills 5.4 million people a year - an average of one person every six seconds - and accounts for one in 10 adult deaths worldwide.
Tobacco kills up to half of all users.
It is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of deaths in the world.
Because there is a lag of several years between when people start using tobacco and when their health suffers, the epidemic of disease and death has just begun.
100 million deaths were caused by tobacco in the 20th century. If current trends continue, there will be up to one billion deaths in the 21st century.
Unchecked, tobacco-related deaths will increase to more than eight million a year by 2030, and 80% of those deaths will occur in the developing world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This concludes with the speculation that over one BILLION deaths will occur worldwide from tobacco use in the 21st century. Are you sure you want to talk "genocide?" Did you say something about "differentiating between the severity..."? Cigarette companies SELL a product that will kill over ONE BILLION people in the 21st century. That is rather severe. Ever hear of a boycott?

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 04:51 PM
Look, the same concept applies to diamonds. I am sure you have heard of the atrocities in places like Sierra Leone, and others. Miners and even children are made to work in brutal conditions, paid next to nothing, and punished severely, including having limbs lopped off, and even executed. As a result, an industry of conflict free diamonds has arisen. I am sure you have heard of it. Supporting the diamond industry MAY support killers, if you are not careful where you get your diamonds from. This same logic applies to a great number of things. I have no figures on the numbers of people maimed or killed annually, but the concern is a public issue. Cigarette use is analogous. It is only easier to hide because it involves smoke and air. Again, pointing fingers is the problem. I am not saying that cigarettes are the only problem. I am saying that cigarette companies are big killers. Really, really big killers.

Bill Beck
JULY 09, 2013 05:12 PM
The point is : deflection.
Post any number of stats or facts on OS and joes like Beck or Frank will jump in and deflect. That's their miserable lot in life.
Defending, minimising, deflecting.
What an extraordinarily useless way to spend your time.
Everyone knows cigarettes are deadly.
Get over it.
This post is about drone strikes.

Kim Gamble
JULY 11, 2013 02:08 AM
Whoops ! Hope I wasn't "harasing" you there Bill.

Kim Gamble
JULY 11, 2013 02:11 AM
Gamble, at the risk of making this personal, you show the amazingly consistent ability to misunderstand.
I can't deflect or minimize whole condeming both. Also, Gamble, a condemnation is not a defense. Your point is rather silly.
I said, it is inconsistent to condemn one and not condemn both. That is not a defense, Gamble.
Good catch on the typo though. Talk about a miserable lot in life.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:17 AM
{while} condemning.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:18 AM
Gamble, the post is about drone strikes. The title is "Obama the child killer." The drones are not exclusively killing children. The post highlights killing of children with its title. The point is to express outrage at the child killing aspect.
It is therefore relevant to compare the connection to "child killing" of second hand smoke. It kills exponentially more children annually than drone strikes. That is a simple matter of fact. The post is not merely about drone strikes, Gamble. It is also about killing children. That broadens the subject quite significantly.
It is understandable tha you would miss that since you have demonstrated missing points so frequently in the past. Again, Gamble, check the title.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:23 AM
Also Gamble, check the first line of my first comment. It is about killing children.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:24 AM
"Every drone strike Obama signs off on, has the potential of killing more than it's intended target, and most often does. "
Here Gamble. Since you're something of a simpleton, I'll give you a lesson. The above quote is from the post. Read it. Comprehend it. It talks about a drone strike's POTENTIAL of killing off more than its intended target.
Let me line up how this is directly analogous for you, Gamble. Replace the drone's intended target for the actual smoker. The unintended recipient of the smoke is the "more than the intended target" portion. The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION compiles statistics for how this trend is increasingly lethal...including children. This same organization says that 50,000 deaths occur in the U.S. alone annually.
I know you're not one for logic, Gamble, but this is directly analogous. Unintended targets resulting in death. Not addicted smokers....UNINTENDED TARGETS.
"Every drone strike Obama signs off on, has the potential of killing more than it's intended target, and most often does. "
Every {CIGARETTE} {cigarette buyer buys} has the potential of killing more than its intended target...{and does to the tune of 50,000 Americans annually.}

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:39 AM
Whoops! I hope I wasn't "harasing" you there, Kim.

Bill Beck
JULY 11, 2013 02:41 AM
Then on Ilya Shabat's blog, a month later, he claims:
beck aug 8, 2013; 10:44 PM:
On the post that you referenced, Joe Banana, even he got it. He used the analogy of living near a freeway and driving a car, which creates pollution. It does not kill as many, and he gave no statistics, but it works essentially the same way. I had TOTALLY forgotten about Joe Banana's post. You're right. But the logic holds. EVEN JOE made a similar analogy.
which is a complete fabrication as Joe's responses indicate:
"Here's a stat for you Bill. As an American citizen, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by our own government than in a "terrorist" attack. Aspirin kills an average of 7000 people a year. Cigarettes are different than getting blown to smithereens by flying death machines for something you had no involvement in. And, smoking is a choice." joebanana july 07, 2013 05:57 PM
and
"This was supposed to be about killing children. By a grown man, with WMD's. Mechanized, industrialized, mass murder, is a sick concept. Cigarettes don't kill children, it takes years to develop cancer, and you don't need cigarettes to do that. I know people who NEVER smoked and died from cancer. St. Judes is full of children with cancer who never smoked, who do you blame for that, Bill? My point is that an adult, using military weaponry to kill children, is the most unforgivable, evil, horrific crime I can think of. Even one child is unacceptable. We put people in cages for years, for possessing a flower. But a man can kill untold numbers of INNOCENT children whether intentionally or not, and we pay him $400,000 a year. That's just sick."
joebanana July 08, 2013 03:37 PM
Out and out lies; AND if one chooses to look deeper, I'm sure there are more here and elsewhere - the guys not only aracist, bully, misogynist, but also a compulsive liar.
Can this please stay issue based?
"aracist" should be "a racist"
"Can this please stay issue based?
Bill Beck
NOVEMBER 17, 2014 02:48 PM
beck, do you mean like this...
"Amy, you talk about leaving certain positions for moral reasons, but you are never the example of morality. You use "evil" as a rhetorical choice for intimidation, and you use insults for intimidation. That is not a moral position. As for big words, which I see none, aren't we talking among adults in a comment section? How is that a relevant criticism? What word seems big to you? What are your insults meant to do? Soothe? Oops. Too big?
or like this?
Amy,
"You need small words? That's just plain funny.
Your presence on this site is like one of those pitiful persons on a street corner downtown screaming at passersby in foul language that the world is coming to and end.
Nobody hears them and their way of delivering a message does not change anything. Nobody. Not anything.
Get help."
P.S. Hypocrite much????
Bill Beck
NOVEMBER 17, 2014 02:48 PM
beck, do you mean like this...
"Amy, you talk about leaving certain positions for moral reasons, but you are never the example of morality. You use "evil" as a rhetorical choice for intimidation, and you use insults for intimidation. That is not a moral position. As for big words, which I see none, aren't we talking among adults in a comment section? How is that a relevant criticism? What word seems big to you? What are your insults meant to do? Soothe? Oops. Too big?
or like this?
Amy,
"You need small words? That's just plain funny.
Your presence on this site is like one of those pitiful persons on a street corner downtown screaming at passersby in foul language that the world is coming to and end.
Nobody hears them and their way of delivering a message does not change anything. Nobody. Not anything.
Get help."
P.S. Hypocrite much????
Yes, Amy, like that. That said, the moral argument is not a good one. Your moral argument also conflicts with your immoral approach. Abandon the moral argument because no one has a reason to be subject to your moral suasion which lacks the effect of following its own advocate. Precisely like that, Amy because you made morality (the person) the issue. I said...drop it. Get it?
Passive-aggressive narcissism on steroids!
MidgeinTokyo
Move toward the red dot.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Move toward the red dot.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Amy, both examples you cited are responses to you, on the approach that you chose. What world do you live in where you believe that you may attack, and someone may not respond cklaiming that your attack in not valid. Both responses turn your attack inside out. What is there not to get? Without your attack, the responses would not exist? How can you not get that?
Incidentally, the claim by others that you are "afraid" is pure bunk. That's the proof. The unsolicited attacks.
Incidentally, the claim by others that you are "afraid" is pure bunk. That's the proof. The unsolicited attacks.
Truth does not apply to moral relativism. There is only one truth. It is singular. Everyone who is free of the belief systems or stories we tell ourselves that subvert our connection to truth, and instead operate from a loving intent, can experience truth and agree when they see it. Rationalism and logic are not truths. These constructs are useful for manipulating the world around us. Unfortunately, they are also used for manipulating people. Moral relativism is very rational and logical. They involve the use of words used to deceive. Putting up with a little evil for a greater good is a fallacy resulting in greater evil. Choosing the lesser of two evils is another fallacy again resulting in greater evil. These and many others offer absolutely no truth. The reality is rationalism and logic are arguments used by organized evil to deceive humanity to what truth really is. I admire you for not compromising in your search for truth. Don't let any of the manipulators and deceivers ever take that away from you.
odor wants to get in on the fun, but he's too cowardly to show here, so he's "written" his own post:
"As Awbrang stated, ' I'll write a longer comment and rate to get you back in the feed."
"Other members on Open Salon who are way smarter than you give them credit for actually do want to stay informed with issues affecting them socially and financially it gives them direction and guidance from both sides of an issue.!Huh!
"percieved"
"belive"
"liabilty"
"michael of all trades, master of none"
"As Awbrang stated, ' I'll write a longer comment and rate to get you back in the feed."
"Other members on Open Salon who are way smarter than you give them credit for actually do want to stay informed with issues affecting them socially and financially it gives them direction and guidance from both sides of an issue.!Huh!
"percieved"
"belive"
"liabilty"
"michael of all trades, master of none"
markinjapan and SBA,
You have hijacked Libby's post and made it impossible for her to have the discussion she was seeking.
What sort of friend does that?
I'm not looking for your answer.
Let it rest.
You have hijacked Libby's post and made it impossible for her to have the discussion she was seeking.
What sort of friend does that?
I'm not looking for your answer.
Let it rest.
I see alsoknownas what? This helped move Libby's thread in the direction She wanted:
"From the Kaiser Family foundation on 10/29/14:
"Baseline estimates show that over 41 million individuals were uninsured in 2013, prior to the start of the major ACA coverage provisions, and early evidence suggests that the ACA has reduced this number. "
and uh ...snip
"As of 2014, the ACA helps expand coverage to millions of currently uninsured people through the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. The ACA also includes reforms to help people maintain coverage and make private insurance affordable and accessible. Early evidence on coverage in the first few months of 2014 indicates that the number of uninsured has declined since the availability of these new provisions."
Better cannot also be worse.
alsoknownas
NOVEMBER 17, 2014 02:10 PM"
"From the Kaiser Family foundation on 10/29/14:
"Baseline estimates show that over 41 million individuals were uninsured in 2013, prior to the start of the major ACA coverage provisions, and early evidence suggests that the ACA has reduced this number. "
and uh ...snip
"As of 2014, the ACA helps expand coverage to millions of currently uninsured people through the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. The ACA also includes reforms to help people maintain coverage and make private insurance affordable and accessible. Early evidence on coverage in the first few months of 2014 indicates that the number of uninsured has declined since the availability of these new provisions."
Better cannot also be worse.
alsoknownas
NOVEMBER 17, 2014 02:10 PM"
As a person who has, at different stages of life, been an Indiana Republican, an "Objectivist" Libertarian and a "loony left" Socialist Green, let me point out that what was once repulsive racism, outrageous religious fundamentalism and libertarian lunacy to the mainstream Republican Party has now become entrenched in platform and Congressional policy. What, twenty years ago, were loony Green pillars of "social justice"and "ecological wisdom" have become policy in Democratic politics and legislation in the ACA/ Obamacare, tax incentives for Alternative Energy and dozens of other programs... The pendulum swings both ways.
Timing Logic,
This isn't about moral relativism. A lot of us who haven't jumped to the Greens aren't hesitating because we believe that the Democrats are good overall or even good enough. This isn't about excuses for Democrats. It's about harm assessment and harm reduction.
I can tell you from a regional standpoint, experience in my own state, that the recent differences between the two parties are still quite substantial. So now we're faced with how to minimize the harm done to the population most effectively. There isn't really a moral question here because most of us looking at this problem, which is to say just about everyone left of center, is defining harm in similar ways. Cutting back of benefits to the unemployed is bad. Cutting back of food assistance to those without money is bad. Disenfranchising massive numbers of poor rural voters is bad. Cutting back on the availability of abortions is bad. Slashing the Hell out of education budgets is bad. The Democrats in my state used to stop this stuff until they got voted out of office, and now we're seeing all of it. In these cases in this location, Democrats have proven to be blatantly better than Republicans.
So, how can we reverse what we're looking at in 2016?
We've got two choices that are somewhat obvious:
1. Vote Democratic here
2. Vote Green here
How do we decide?
There has to be some way of making the calculation. Put very simply, I'd say oversimplified in fact, the most sensible way to approach the calculation has to be desirability times probability. Perhaps another way of stating that would be desirability times availability.
We'll start with desirability. We aren't talking about Obama/Holder here. In fact, in 2016, we won't be talking about Obama/Holder at all; they're both pretty much guaranteed to be gone. The differences between Democrats and Republicans on these issues in this state are not theoretical, they are observable, and they are also significant.
Let's continue with desirability. The Green platform would be likely to be better than the Democratic platform on a local level, though I can't tell you how much. However, that comparison is about platforms, which is quite different than comparing predictions about actual governing.
The Greens are of course an unknown quantity, but we have to be careful about making a pair of assumptions here:
That a bunch of inexperienced politicians will be able to govern effectively and
That a third party of politicians will be immune from the same forces that tilt the Democrats too far toward the corporate, which is to say the expense of running for office which, at least initially, will not change.
So, we assume the Greens would be an improvement, though that is by no means a slam dunk. And, at a local level, probably less of an improvement, because at a local level the differences between Democrats and Republicans are still very pronounced.
If we assume that Greens would be more desirable locally than Democrats, the next question is whether they are available. If we choose Greens rather than Republicans, can we actually get Greens?
If we choose Democrats rather than Republicans, can we actually get Democrats?
At this point, we have a shot at Democrats but hardly any at Greens, though they might ally with Democrats if they end up with some seats because they're clearly closer to Democrats than to Republicans in convictions.
So, we've got laid off people who need unemployment to eat, we've got poor people, particularly children, who need food stamps to eat, we've got poor rural people who need to vote if we're going to have a prayer of accomplishing anything, we've got a state full of public school kids (and state university students) who need decent educations to succeed.
There is nothing morally relativistic about attempting to help these populations. There is nothing morally relativistic about setting a priority on helping these populations.
Maximizing the likelihood of helping these populations is a moral decision. Not a relatively moral decision, a moral decision.
This isn't about moral relativism. A lot of us who haven't jumped to the Greens aren't hesitating because we believe that the Democrats are good overall or even good enough. This isn't about excuses for Democrats. It's about harm assessment and harm reduction.
I can tell you from a regional standpoint, experience in my own state, that the recent differences between the two parties are still quite substantial. So now we're faced with how to minimize the harm done to the population most effectively. There isn't really a moral question here because most of us looking at this problem, which is to say just about everyone left of center, is defining harm in similar ways. Cutting back of benefits to the unemployed is bad. Cutting back of food assistance to those without money is bad. Disenfranchising massive numbers of poor rural voters is bad. Cutting back on the availability of abortions is bad. Slashing the Hell out of education budgets is bad. The Democrats in my state used to stop this stuff until they got voted out of office, and now we're seeing all of it. In these cases in this location, Democrats have proven to be blatantly better than Republicans.
So, how can we reverse what we're looking at in 2016?
We've got two choices that are somewhat obvious:
1. Vote Democratic here
2. Vote Green here
How do we decide?
There has to be some way of making the calculation. Put very simply, I'd say oversimplified in fact, the most sensible way to approach the calculation has to be desirability times probability. Perhaps another way of stating that would be desirability times availability.
We'll start with desirability. We aren't talking about Obama/Holder here. In fact, in 2016, we won't be talking about Obama/Holder at all; they're both pretty much guaranteed to be gone. The differences between Democrats and Republicans on these issues in this state are not theoretical, they are observable, and they are also significant.
Let's continue with desirability. The Green platform would be likely to be better than the Democratic platform on a local level, though I can't tell you how much. However, that comparison is about platforms, which is quite different than comparing predictions about actual governing.
The Greens are of course an unknown quantity, but we have to be careful about making a pair of assumptions here:
That a bunch of inexperienced politicians will be able to govern effectively and
That a third party of politicians will be immune from the same forces that tilt the Democrats too far toward the corporate, which is to say the expense of running for office which, at least initially, will not change.
So, we assume the Greens would be an improvement, though that is by no means a slam dunk. And, at a local level, probably less of an improvement, because at a local level the differences between Democrats and Republicans are still very pronounced.
If we assume that Greens would be more desirable locally than Democrats, the next question is whether they are available. If we choose Greens rather than Republicans, can we actually get Greens?
If we choose Democrats rather than Republicans, can we actually get Democrats?
At this point, we have a shot at Democrats but hardly any at Greens, though they might ally with Democrats if they end up with some seats because they're clearly closer to Democrats than to Republicans in convictions.
So, we've got laid off people who need unemployment to eat, we've got poor people, particularly children, who need food stamps to eat, we've got poor rural people who need to vote if we're going to have a prayer of accomplishing anything, we've got a state full of public school kids (and state university students) who need decent educations to succeed.
There is nothing morally relativistic about attempting to help these populations. There is nothing morally relativistic about setting a priority on helping these populations.
Maximizing the likelihood of helping these populations is a moral decision. Not a relatively moral decision, a moral decision.
Kosh, I agree with all except, your vote is a moral decision for you. Your neighbor's vote is not a moral decision for you. You don't even have an entry into your neighbor's vote except to see that it is guaranteed. Your entry or perspective with regard to your neighbor's vote is purely civic. Another way to say it is, you may agree on a moral principle with your neighbor, but the vote, and the conduct of the polity are civic acts. Morality does not tranfer from one individual to the next, even in agreement. Your moral conduct is an issue for your soul and your conduct. It may inform your civic duties, but it does not inform others civic duties.
Thanks for all the juicy comments! I am at work doing double shift but hopefully get to re-visit during a coffee break. best, libby
Bill,
I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't think I'm claiming to speak for my neighbor. I am claiming that, to translate into Libby's and Timing Logic's terms, the questions of feeding the poor and unemployed, preserving the vote of the rural poor, and enhancing the education of children and young adults all over the state are not questions about promoting evil; if anything, they're about preventing and reversing evil. If I have a chance to help these populations, would I be morally right to favor a more egalitarian, less corporatist series of policies to avoid associating with and being seen as supporting people who could actually help these populations in need? As a moral question, what do we have to say about a bird in the hand? (The bird in the hand point may not be completely accurate, but it's close enough to make my overall point.)
On what do we base politically moral decisions? There are actual dilemmas here. How important is it to avoid the appearance of supporting those who do some immoral things compared to how important it is to insure our ability to help people and protect people, particularly from a more limited menu? If helping and protecting people is the object, then concerns about maintaining our ability to help and protect them have to be part of a moral equation.
This isn't about excuses. This is about how to maximize good and minimize evil. I can't in good conscience (I mean that literally) contend that morality consists of keeping my hands as clean as possible, because that assumes that purity is intrinsically more moral than helping people effectively, I don't think it is, though there are of course limits. It's a complex balancing act.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't think I'm claiming to speak for my neighbor. I am claiming that, to translate into Libby's and Timing Logic's terms, the questions of feeding the poor and unemployed, preserving the vote of the rural poor, and enhancing the education of children and young adults all over the state are not questions about promoting evil; if anything, they're about preventing and reversing evil. If I have a chance to help these populations, would I be morally right to favor a more egalitarian, less corporatist series of policies to avoid associating with and being seen as supporting people who could actually help these populations in need? As a moral question, what do we have to say about a bird in the hand? (The bird in the hand point may not be completely accurate, but it's close enough to make my overall point.)
On what do we base politically moral decisions? There are actual dilemmas here. How important is it to avoid the appearance of supporting those who do some immoral things compared to how important it is to insure our ability to help people and protect people, particularly from a more limited menu? If helping and protecting people is the object, then concerns about maintaining our ability to help and protect them have to be part of a moral equation.
This isn't about excuses. This is about how to maximize good and minimize evil. I can't in good conscience (I mean that literally) contend that morality consists of keeping my hands as clean as possible, because that assumes that purity is intrinsically more moral than helping people effectively, I don't think it is, though there are of course limits. It's a complex balancing act.
I agree with your comment and your general perspective. I see the following as problematic.
"Maximizing the likelihood of helping these populations is a moral decision. Not a relatively moral decision, a moral decision."
I agree with this too. The tricky part is joining hands as a group and doing the moral thing. Then, the public/group conduct changes from civic action to moral obligation. I agree that this is the moral thing to choose. Therefore, I do accordingly. However, it changes at the point where I say, this is the moral thing for you (neighbor) to do. It also changes when I say, this is the point where we must do the moral thing.
"Maximizing the likelihood of helping these populations is a moral decision. Not a relatively moral decision, a moral decision."
I agree with this too. The tricky part is joining hands as a group and doing the moral thing. Then, the public/group conduct changes from civic action to moral obligation. I agree that this is the moral thing to choose. Therefore, I do accordingly. However, it changes at the point where I say, this is the moral thing for you (neighbor) to do. It also changes when I say, this is the point where we must do the moral thing.
The only 2 labels I would willingly wear are anti-corporate and anti-capitalist. In my mind neither has anything to do with conventional notions of left-right or conservative-liberal dichotomies.
In fact I find I have far more in common with libertarians (who consider themselves right wing conservatives) than I do with so-called liberals like Hillary Clinton - especially around the issue of monetary policy and abolishing the Federal Reserve.
In fact I find I have far more in common with libertarians (who consider themselves right wing conservatives) than I do with so-called liberals like Hillary Clinton - especially around the issue of monetary policy and abolishing the Federal Reserve.
Bill,
You're saying that I can't make moral decisions for my neighbor? That's up to them.
You're saying that I can't make moral decisions for my neighbor? That's up to them.
No, you absolutely can do that. World history is full of that. That actually tends to be the rule and not the exception. Salem Mass. was that. ISIS is that. The Taliban is that. You absolutely can. It is just not a good idea, for the cases stated above.
Past performance is NO guarantee of the future, Dr. Bramhall, but based on past experience, I'd say You just gained two enemies.
I don't see why the bobsy twins wouldn't be pushing for hillary.
I don't see why the bobsy twins wouldn't be pushing for hillary.
Quite a few comments and but a short cup of coffee for this work break. Thanks for commenting and I will see how well I do, and I will be back later for balance that I don't address which may be most.
Theodora! Thanks for your passionate comment. I have been reading about hungry children. 1 out of 4 at least in America. And so many social programs being cut even further. War and nuclear even budgets rising. Many Obamacare policies are going to go up for 2015 apparently. I think the OWS movement was a great idea, but I also think they were wary of being co-opted by the status quo rulers and parties but they did need to address policies to keep it going and they did need older, sadder but wiser progressives to join up and also the needed more participators and less watchers. Maybe the next time they become more high profile? I am looking at how awful things are globally and thinking not only does the 99% in the US better start working together but the global 99%. Especially with these horrifing corporate wars and the black ops operations which end up promoting stuff like opium selling in Afghanistan or big name banksters money laundering for Mexican drug cartels. Time to pull out the humanitarian basics, thou shalt not kill, do unto others, what you do to the least of us you do unto me, etc. Good for you with your donations. You are talking about walking the good walk not just talking the political talk. Pete Seeger said "Think globally, work locally." Margaret Mead insisted it only takes a small group of committed citizens to change the world. best, libby
Theodora! Thanks for your passionate comment. I have been reading about hungry children. 1 out of 4 at least in America. And so many social programs being cut even further. War and nuclear even budgets rising. Many Obamacare policies are going to go up for 2015 apparently. I think the OWS movement was a great idea, but I also think they were wary of being co-opted by the status quo rulers and parties but they did need to address policies to keep it going and they did need older, sadder but wiser progressives to join up and also the needed more participators and less watchers. Maybe the next time they become more high profile? I am looking at how awful things are globally and thinking not only does the 99% in the US better start working together but the global 99%. Especially with these horrifing corporate wars and the black ops operations which end up promoting stuff like opium selling in Afghanistan or big name banksters money laundering for Mexican drug cartels. Time to pull out the humanitarian basics, thou shalt not kill, do unto others, what you do to the least of us you do unto me, etc. Good for you with your donations. You are talking about walking the good walk not just talking the political talk. Pete Seeger said "Think globally, work locally." Margaret Mead insisted it only takes a small group of committed citizens to change the world. best, libby
Mark, is that how many left uninsured now? Originally I think they estimated twenty-something million would be left uninsured, but your number probably reflects the present scenario. Yes, Obamacare offering some perks, no argument, but next to universal healthcare it falls tragically short for that one very important thing. "All in, nobody out" would have been so wonderful for our country -- morale boosting, besides saving lives. And the time had come. It was time. The premature public option compromising that disappeared anyway, as soon as it was used to split up the progressives who wanted universal all the way and the ones following Obama who was insisting on compromise. Who knew community organizing didn't include even the physicians and nurses on making decisions. Only the corporations were welcome at Max Baucus's committee meetings to draw up Obamacare. Dr. Margaret Flowers and others even got thrown in jail for showing up and insisting on addressing the needs and issues. Remember Michael Moore's amazing movie about how many countries have universal health care but not us? Why don't we? We give $3.1 billion a year to Israel, and Israel has universal health care -- HELLO?????? best, libby
Coffee break over. Didn't get very far. See you guys later. :-)
Well, Libby, alsoknownas what? offered up a rebuttal from a republican oriented website that claims there's only forty one million uninsured, so what's three million when weighing the obama-world "legacy?"
libby, it’s worth keeping in mind that those of us at whom this post is aimed are in pretty close agreement with you on policy objectives. That would include rebalancing the tax system so the richer would pay appreciably more, sharp cuts in military spending, universal health care, stronger measures to reduce carbon emissions including a carbon tax and the ready availability of abortion. There’s plenty more but for starters, those are the main ones.
To my way of thinking then, what is the quickest way of getting there?
The political system at present is heavily stacked against third and fourth parties. It’s saturated with money that is largely unavailable to any except the Dems and Repubs. And the first past the post voting system means that votes for third parties never elect third parties. In a preferential voting system, “wasted” votes are defined out of existence. People who now vote either Repub or Dem because they’re the only ones likely to win would now be able to vote for their favorite while making a Dem or Repub their second or third choice. That would really open the door for third parties. But that looks to be a long way of as there doesn’t seem to be anything in the way of a popular movement to establish it.
So that leaved campaign finance reform. And that means overturning a few Supreme decisions like Citizens United. The only way I can see this happening is with further Dem presidents appoint the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor. You know that a Repub pres would appoint someone like Scalia/Alito/Thomas.
I doubt this will change your mind as there seem to be two ways of looking at it that talk past one another. To me and to others, the following questions are entirely legit and go to the heart of the matter:
For those favoring Stein, what is the roadmap for getting a third party candidate elected? What’s your best guess as to how many electoral cycles that would take, given the vast disparity of political funding and a voting system tiled against them?
Do you think that the differences in Supreme Court nominations is so inconsequential as to not be worthy of consideration?
I haven’t argued with you on these points but I have with others who vote Green and I have yet to get a straight answer. It’s as though those questions that seem basic to me are outside the equation for others.
Do you really think that decrying the Dems’ policy offenses and various shortcomings while strongly urging, to put it mildly, that disaffected Dems start voting Green too, is really the quickest way of achieving the policy ends we have in common?
To my way of thinking then, what is the quickest way of getting there?
The political system at present is heavily stacked against third and fourth parties. It’s saturated with money that is largely unavailable to any except the Dems and Repubs. And the first past the post voting system means that votes for third parties never elect third parties. In a preferential voting system, “wasted” votes are defined out of existence. People who now vote either Repub or Dem because they’re the only ones likely to win would now be able to vote for their favorite while making a Dem or Repub their second or third choice. That would really open the door for third parties. But that looks to be a long way of as there doesn’t seem to be anything in the way of a popular movement to establish it.
So that leaved campaign finance reform. And that means overturning a few Supreme decisions like Citizens United. The only way I can see this happening is with further Dem presidents appoint the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor. You know that a Repub pres would appoint someone like Scalia/Alito/Thomas.
I doubt this will change your mind as there seem to be two ways of looking at it that talk past one another. To me and to others, the following questions are entirely legit and go to the heart of the matter:
For those favoring Stein, what is the roadmap for getting a third party candidate elected? What’s your best guess as to how many electoral cycles that would take, given the vast disparity of political funding and a voting system tiled against them?
Do you think that the differences in Supreme Court nominations is so inconsequential as to not be worthy of consideration?
I haven’t argued with you on these points but I have with others who vote Green and I have yet to get a straight answer. It’s as though those questions that seem basic to me are outside the equation for others.
Do you really think that decrying the Dems’ policy offenses and various shortcomings while strongly urging, to put it mildly, that disaffected Dems start voting Green too, is really the quickest way of achieving the policy ends we have in common?
The problem with hoping the Democratic politicians will transform into representatives of the general public is that the majority of previously Democratic voters have lost faith in the party and the system. Two thirds of voters have refused to vote. It's not like the problem of God where you can't prove he doesn't exist. The non-existence of public minded politicians is all out in the open and recognized. If anybody is loony it's those keepers of the faith when the party has lost theirs.The whole damned system is defunct.
Here is where JoeBanana demonstrated that he got the principle. It is an off subject rant by MIJ, but what else is new.
"Do you drive a car? Do you live near a freeway? Do you know how much tire rubber you inhale every day? Way more than any second hand smoke you might be exposed to. Out of the 46,000 deaths attributed to heart disease from second hand smoke, how many are clinically proven?
Maybe Obama should just ship lots of cigarettes over there, and save the Hellfire's for the grown-ups.
Given the choice, I'd rather see my kids smoke cigarettes than get vaporized by a Predator drone.
In answer to your question, yes, I do smoke, but none of my children do. Two are adult, and one's in high school."
joebanana
JULY 08, 2013 03:10 AM
The point still escapes Mark, and he contiues to obsess about it. Dennis Loo made some comment about whether this was calling Joe wrong or evil for smoking, etc. It wasn't. As with much of this discussion, the "evil" judgement this is entirely beside the point. The point is that many things that we all contribute to account for far more deaths than drones. Smoking is one example for which there are statistics. It is not about declaring evil, as I have repeatedly said. It is about being part of something versus standing apart and claiming moral superiority and pointing fingers.
If you stand apart and claim that you are good, and they are evil....whoever they may be, you may have a hard time seeing this point. That is not my point. I am not merely turning around the same bad argument. I am saying that the point of declaring "evil" is flawed...at best.
"Do you drive a car? Do you live near a freeway? Do you know how much tire rubber you inhale every day? Way more than any second hand smoke you might be exposed to. Out of the 46,000 deaths attributed to heart disease from second hand smoke, how many are clinically proven?
Maybe Obama should just ship lots of cigarettes over there, and save the Hellfire's for the grown-ups.
Given the choice, I'd rather see my kids smoke cigarettes than get vaporized by a Predator drone.
In answer to your question, yes, I do smoke, but none of my children do. Two are adult, and one's in high school."
joebanana
JULY 08, 2013 03:10 AM
The point still escapes Mark, and he contiues to obsess about it. Dennis Loo made some comment about whether this was calling Joe wrong or evil for smoking, etc. It wasn't. As with much of this discussion, the "evil" judgement this is entirely beside the point. The point is that many things that we all contribute to account for far more deaths than drones. Smoking is one example for which there are statistics. It is not about declaring evil, as I have repeatedly said. It is about being part of something versus standing apart and claiming moral superiority and pointing fingers.
If you stand apart and claim that you are good, and they are evil....whoever they may be, you may have a hard time seeing this point. That is not my point. I am not merely turning around the same bad argument. I am saying that the point of declaring "evil" is flawed...at best.
BEFORE I ADDRESS MORE COMMENTS, HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM ALTERNATE MEDIA ARTICLES I READ EARLY THIS MORNING:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamacare-causes-health-premiums-to-nearly-double-among-americas-young-adults/5414532
Obamacare Causes Health Premiums to Nearly Double Among America’s Young Adults
By Ethan A. Huff
The true “affordability” of Obamacare has been called into question by a new study, which found that average premium costs across the board have skyrocketed from what they were before the unconstitutional tax dubbed “healthcare reform” became law in 2010.
The health insurance aggregate site HealthPocket found that, among three different non-smoking age groups, 23, 30 and 63, insurance premiums jumped significantly as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The worst age category was 23-year-old men, who saw their premiums increase by an average of 78 percent.
Similarly, 30-year-old men saw their premiums increase by an astounding 73 percent, while 63-year-old men witnessed a 22.7 percent increase, on average. Women in the younger age groups also saw premium increases, though less severe.
snip
Obamacare apologists would claim that these higher premiums are offset by government subsidies that help those who otherwise could not afford to pay them. But the data shows that many folks, especially younger ones, don’t even qualify.
snip
Healthy young people expected to shoulder financial burden of covering sick folks with pre-existing health conditions
The only way Obamacare can even work is if healthy younger people agree to purchase overpriced insurance, the premiums of which cover all the unhealthy folks, many of whom have pre-existing health conditions that weren’t covered under the old insurance model.
But many of the younger people who need Obamacare in the first place likely couldn’t afford health insurance prior to its implementation, and even more so can’t afford it now due to its significantly higher premium costs.
THIIS IS VERY DEPRESSING NEWS.
A BAIT AND SWITCHING!!!
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/18/grub-n18.html
Kate Randall in "Obamacare adviser: Administration exploited “the stupidity of the American voter”" writes:
US President Barack Obama and his signature health care legislation have come under fire in recent days over the comments of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber, a key adviser to the president on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare.
... Gruber states: “If you had a law that… makes explicit that healthy people are going to pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
If we can be allowed to translate, Gruber is basically saying: “Under the ACA, people are required by law to purchase health care coverage from insurance companies. In order for these private insurers to make a profit, a sufficient number of healthy people need to sign up for coverage to make it profitable for the insurers. In order to get the bill passed, we needed to obscure this reality from the public.”
As for the “stupidity of the American voter” comment, it should be pointed out that Obamacare was not subject to a popular vote. Any confusion in the general population over its provisions was due to a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign by the Obama administration and sections of what passes for the “liberal” media, such as the New York Times, to paint the legislation as a groundbreaking reform that would provide near-universal, quality and affordable medical care for millions of Americans and improve the present dismal state of the US health care system.
snip
It was Gruber’s research that convinced the Obama administration that the health care overhaul would not be viable without forcing people to purchase insurance under threat of a tax penalty. This mandate is now in force and individuals who do not obtain insurance will be fined $325 or 2 percent of their income, whichever is more, in 2015.
snip
The ACA has nothing in common with a progressive reform, but is aimed at slashing costs for big business and the government while rationing health care for the vast majority of working people.
AND THIS ONE:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/18/home-n18.html
Child homelessness at all-time high in US
By Niles Williamson
America’s Youngest Outcasts, a study released this week by the National Center on Family Homelessness at American Institutes for Research (NCFH), reported that 2.5 million America children were homeless at some point last year, a historic high. The authors of the report warn if these brutal social conditions persist or worsen it will result in the establishment of a “permanent Third World in America.”
More than six years after the height of the foreclosure crisis and fifty years after the declaration of the “War on Poverty,” homeless children account for one out of every thirty children in the country.
The number of homeless children increased eight percent between 2012 and 2013 while the number of homeless children rose by nearly one million between 2010 and 2013.
snip
“Child homelessness has reached epidemic proportions in America,” said Dr. Carmela DeCandia, director of the NCFH. “Living in shelters, neighbors’ basements, cars, campgrounds, and worse, homeless children are the most invisible and neglected individuals in our society. Without decisive action now, the federal goal of ending child homelessness by 2020 will soon be out of reach,” she concluded.
According to the NCFH report, between the end of the Great Depression and the early 1980s, child homelessness was not a widespread or persistent problem. Child homelessness emerged as a significant and persistent social problem in the middle of the 1980s amidst the social counterrevolution inaugurated by the administration of Ronald Reagan.
snip
A 2013 study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that there was no state in the US where an individual working a 40-hour minimum-wage job could afford a two-bedroom apartment for his or her family.
Homelessness has been shown to damage the cognitive development of young children, further limiting their opportunities later in life.
According to the NCFH report, the effects of trauma associated with homelessness may impair the development of a child’s brain structure, disrupting the ability to learn and blocking the development of social relationships, cognitive skills and emotional self-regulation. Approximately 25 percent of homeless preschool age
children have serious mental health problems; this rises to 40 percent among homeless school age children.
snip
The HUD count, which found 216,261 homeless family members at the beginning of 2013, left out hundreds of thousands of children and families in transitory shelter.
snip
The states with the worst composite rating are located in the Southeast and Southwest, while those with the least onerous scores are concentrated in the Midwest and Northeast.
Minnesota had the “best” score with a population of 23,608 homeless children in 2013 and a child poverty rate of 14 percent.
Alabama had the worst with a population of 59,349 homeless children in 2013 and a child poverty rate of 27 percent. Last year in California a staggering 525,000 children experienced homelessness, while 190,000 did in Texas, and nearly 140,000 in Florida.
Despite rising to historic levels, the issue of child homelessness was not once addressed during the midterm elections by the Democrats or Republicans. No new tranche of funding or emergency social program was proposed that would aim to eliminate the social crime of child poverty and homelessness. The callous indifference of Democrats and Republicans alike to the plight of the most vulnerable members of American society is not surprising, as they not only serve the interests of the rich but are themselves of the rich. 2012 marked the first time that a majority of congressional members had an average net worth of $1 million or more.
END OF QUOTES
1 out of 4 kids in America is HUNGRY, 1 out of 30 is HOMELESS!!! Last year 2.5 million children in America were homeless!!! THIS IS AN HISTORIC HIGH!!! Between 2010 and 2013, the number of homeless children rose by 1 million. 45 million people in America live at or below the poverty line!
Obamacare prices are skyrocketing!!
The young can't get jobs easily. Now they are being penalized and heavily extorted for insurance money.
WTF????
We are sliding into third worldom!! Some have already slid to there.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamacare-causes-health-premiums-to-nearly-double-among-americas-young-adults/5414532
Obamacare Causes Health Premiums to Nearly Double Among America’s Young Adults
By Ethan A. Huff
The true “affordability” of Obamacare has been called into question by a new study, which found that average premium costs across the board have skyrocketed from what they were before the unconstitutional tax dubbed “healthcare reform” became law in 2010.
The health insurance aggregate site HealthPocket found that, among three different non-smoking age groups, 23, 30 and 63, insurance premiums jumped significantly as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The worst age category was 23-year-old men, who saw their premiums increase by an average of 78 percent.
Similarly, 30-year-old men saw their premiums increase by an astounding 73 percent, while 63-year-old men witnessed a 22.7 percent increase, on average. Women in the younger age groups also saw premium increases, though less severe.
snip
Obamacare apologists would claim that these higher premiums are offset by government subsidies that help those who otherwise could not afford to pay them. But the data shows that many folks, especially younger ones, don’t even qualify.
snip
Healthy young people expected to shoulder financial burden of covering sick folks with pre-existing health conditions
The only way Obamacare can even work is if healthy younger people agree to purchase overpriced insurance, the premiums of which cover all the unhealthy folks, many of whom have pre-existing health conditions that weren’t covered under the old insurance model.
But many of the younger people who need Obamacare in the first place likely couldn’t afford health insurance prior to its implementation, and even more so can’t afford it now due to its significantly higher premium costs.
THIIS IS VERY DEPRESSING NEWS.
A BAIT AND SWITCHING!!!
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/18/grub-n18.html
Kate Randall in "Obamacare adviser: Administration exploited “the stupidity of the American voter”" writes:
US President Barack Obama and his signature health care legislation have come under fire in recent days over the comments of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber, a key adviser to the president on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare.
... Gruber states: “If you had a law that… makes explicit that healthy people are going to pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
If we can be allowed to translate, Gruber is basically saying: “Under the ACA, people are required by law to purchase health care coverage from insurance companies. In order for these private insurers to make a profit, a sufficient number of healthy people need to sign up for coverage to make it profitable for the insurers. In order to get the bill passed, we needed to obscure this reality from the public.”
As for the “stupidity of the American voter” comment, it should be pointed out that Obamacare was not subject to a popular vote. Any confusion in the general population over its provisions was due to a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign by the Obama administration and sections of what passes for the “liberal” media, such as the New York Times, to paint the legislation as a groundbreaking reform that would provide near-universal, quality and affordable medical care for millions of Americans and improve the present dismal state of the US health care system.
snip
It was Gruber’s research that convinced the Obama administration that the health care overhaul would not be viable without forcing people to purchase insurance under threat of a tax penalty. This mandate is now in force and individuals who do not obtain insurance will be fined $325 or 2 percent of their income, whichever is more, in 2015.
snip
The ACA has nothing in common with a progressive reform, but is aimed at slashing costs for big business and the government while rationing health care for the vast majority of working people.
AND THIS ONE:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/18/home-n18.html
Child homelessness at all-time high in US
By Niles Williamson
America’s Youngest Outcasts, a study released this week by the National Center on Family Homelessness at American Institutes for Research (NCFH), reported that 2.5 million America children were homeless at some point last year, a historic high. The authors of the report warn if these brutal social conditions persist or worsen it will result in the establishment of a “permanent Third World in America.”
More than six years after the height of the foreclosure crisis and fifty years after the declaration of the “War on Poverty,” homeless children account for one out of every thirty children in the country.
The number of homeless children increased eight percent between 2012 and 2013 while the number of homeless children rose by nearly one million between 2010 and 2013.
snip
“Child homelessness has reached epidemic proportions in America,” said Dr. Carmela DeCandia, director of the NCFH. “Living in shelters, neighbors’ basements, cars, campgrounds, and worse, homeless children are the most invisible and neglected individuals in our society. Without decisive action now, the federal goal of ending child homelessness by 2020 will soon be out of reach,” she concluded.
According to the NCFH report, between the end of the Great Depression and the early 1980s, child homelessness was not a widespread or persistent problem. Child homelessness emerged as a significant and persistent social problem in the middle of the 1980s amidst the social counterrevolution inaugurated by the administration of Ronald Reagan.
snip
A 2013 study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that there was no state in the US where an individual working a 40-hour minimum-wage job could afford a two-bedroom apartment for his or her family.
Homelessness has been shown to damage the cognitive development of young children, further limiting their opportunities later in life.
According to the NCFH report, the effects of trauma associated with homelessness may impair the development of a child’s brain structure, disrupting the ability to learn and blocking the development of social relationships, cognitive skills and emotional self-regulation. Approximately 25 percent of homeless preschool age
children have serious mental health problems; this rises to 40 percent among homeless school age children.
snip
The HUD count, which found 216,261 homeless family members at the beginning of 2013, left out hundreds of thousands of children and families in transitory shelter.
snip
The states with the worst composite rating are located in the Southeast and Southwest, while those with the least onerous scores are concentrated in the Midwest and Northeast.
Minnesota had the “best” score with a population of 23,608 homeless children in 2013 and a child poverty rate of 14 percent.
Alabama had the worst with a population of 59,349 homeless children in 2013 and a child poverty rate of 27 percent. Last year in California a staggering 525,000 children experienced homelessness, while 190,000 did in Texas, and nearly 140,000 in Florida.
Despite rising to historic levels, the issue of child homelessness was not once addressed during the midterm elections by the Democrats or Republicans. No new tranche of funding or emergency social program was proposed that would aim to eliminate the social crime of child poverty and homelessness. The callous indifference of Democrats and Republicans alike to the plight of the most vulnerable members of American society is not surprising, as they not only serve the interests of the rich but are themselves of the rich. 2012 marked the first time that a majority of congressional members had an average net worth of $1 million or more.
END OF QUOTES
1 out of 4 kids in America is HUNGRY, 1 out of 30 is HOMELESS!!! Last year 2.5 million children in America were homeless!!! THIS IS AN HISTORIC HIGH!!! Between 2010 and 2013, the number of homeless children rose by 1 million. 45 million people in America live at or below the poverty line!
Obamacare prices are skyrocketing!!
The young can't get jobs easily. Now they are being penalized and heavily extorted for insurance money.
WTF????
We are sliding into third worldom!! Some have already slid to there.
abra, thanks for stopping by ... twice! :-) I look forward to reading your messaging below.
kosh, thanks for writing again and I am sorry I was so defensive earlier. To bridge the camps we need a lot of hard listening and acknowledgment of what information we are both aware of and can possibly agree on, and to me this includes the degree and scope of the corruption of both corporate parties. The awareness stage of the 3 A's, Awareness, Acceptance, Action.
You claim that the list of anti-constitutional and international law policies by Obama and Holder I listed in the blog are not unknown to pro-Obama progressives but you all can live with them for the sake of making incremental progress with the lesser evil Dem pols against the rabid Republican pols.
I often message that there is an ignorance with pro-Obama progressives thanks to the focus and omissions and disinformation of the mainstream corporate media. Otherwise, why would so many abide being part of a Party that participates in mass murder and mass fraud, etc.?
To me it seems like such "okayness" with the serious corruption barely hidden at surface on the part of the Dem Party is a boiled frog phenomenon. Cronying up to a party that does not and should not be considered worthy of respect and your vote is gullible and passive and if you do know the degree and scope of corruption, then to me it is unconscionably amoral of you to support said Dem Party.
I see my role on open salon as one of iconoclast, shared by some earnest others. It is a mouthy job, but somebody's gotta do it.
We are modern day Paul Revere liberals announcing, "The sociopathic and murderous oligarchs are coming!!! The sociopathic and murderous oligarchs are HERE!!!"
You assert that our relentless reporting of new facts along with the repeating choruses calling out sociopathic corporatist betrayal is already known by the majority of Dem Party progressives. I find this hard to believe, since it seems the propagandizing mainstream media is the source for so much disinformation and the positively spun sensibility of governmental leaders.
But if it is true, you guys know all, then it is all the more disturbing since why isn't there more outrage being expressed and why are you guys still card-carrying, Obama-defending Dems if you know all this corruption and self-serving anti-citizen stances to support the same donor base that the Republicans serve?
I admit to attributing ignorance of the realpolitik going on and this ignorance was and is one of my explanations for a lack of a sensibility that should come naturally and provoke a stand-up stance to protest the party by quitting it in my mind. Though ignorance, continuing ignorance, is no excuse for terminal amorality.
Also what disturbs me is that you claim the "near left" cares more about domestic issues than international. I see the two horrifying, what is going on, and also profoundly connected. Money used for war could be used applied to domestic programs to improve the general quality of life with us.
You declare:
"You want to be further left. We want to be further left. In point of fact, the American people want us to be further left if you analyze by issue stands.
"Your answer is that protecting the Democrats won't keep us from being further right because the Republicans aren't appreciably further right than the Democrats."
So you, kosh, assert that the good that is being done by the Dems is enough for now. I assert that by enabling the Dems we keep an ever-reduced quality of life and give up the opportunity to make positive recovery and change. I'm not fighting for "purity", I am fighting for real change based on principles and morality. And that kind of change demands numbers, people willing to make shock waves directed to the Dem Party to seriously change it or replace it. To start representing the people, the working class, the disenfranchised and marginalized.
The leadership will happen. If you bail on the Dem Party the momentum of collective moral conscience will be felt ... not just in America but around the world. We need pro-action. We need citizen identity. We need to demand that a rising tide raise all boats.
Will this be the Green Party. The Socialist Equality Party. Another Party? I don't know. But these third parties don't have a shot if the majority of pro-Dem party progressives are going to put their arms across their chests and demand to be shown the force for change, when they are needed to become a part of the force of change, otherwise it won't be a force. The leap must be made by all of us.
This isn't a bridge today. But it is something. A sharing.
Thank you. I will keep pondering it all as I know you will. To be continued by us and others.
best, libby
kosh, thanks for writing again and I am sorry I was so defensive earlier. To bridge the camps we need a lot of hard listening and acknowledgment of what information we are both aware of and can possibly agree on, and to me this includes the degree and scope of the corruption of both corporate parties. The awareness stage of the 3 A's, Awareness, Acceptance, Action.
You claim that the list of anti-constitutional and international law policies by Obama and Holder I listed in the blog are not unknown to pro-Obama progressives but you all can live with them for the sake of making incremental progress with the lesser evil Dem pols against the rabid Republican pols.
I often message that there is an ignorance with pro-Obama progressives thanks to the focus and omissions and disinformation of the mainstream corporate media. Otherwise, why would so many abide being part of a Party that participates in mass murder and mass fraud, etc.?
To me it seems like such "okayness" with the serious corruption barely hidden at surface on the part of the Dem Party is a boiled frog phenomenon. Cronying up to a party that does not and should not be considered worthy of respect and your vote is gullible and passive and if you do know the degree and scope of corruption, then to me it is unconscionably amoral of you to support said Dem Party.
I see my role on open salon as one of iconoclast, shared by some earnest others. It is a mouthy job, but somebody's gotta do it.
We are modern day Paul Revere liberals announcing, "The sociopathic and murderous oligarchs are coming!!! The sociopathic and murderous oligarchs are HERE!!!"
You assert that our relentless reporting of new facts along with the repeating choruses calling out sociopathic corporatist betrayal is already known by the majority of Dem Party progressives. I find this hard to believe, since it seems the propagandizing mainstream media is the source for so much disinformation and the positively spun sensibility of governmental leaders.
But if it is true, you guys know all, then it is all the more disturbing since why isn't there more outrage being expressed and why are you guys still card-carrying, Obama-defending Dems if you know all this corruption and self-serving anti-citizen stances to support the same donor base that the Republicans serve?
I admit to attributing ignorance of the realpolitik going on and this ignorance was and is one of my explanations for a lack of a sensibility that should come naturally and provoke a stand-up stance to protest the party by quitting it in my mind. Though ignorance, continuing ignorance, is no excuse for terminal amorality.
Also what disturbs me is that you claim the "near left" cares more about domestic issues than international. I see the two horrifying, what is going on, and also profoundly connected. Money used for war could be used applied to domestic programs to improve the general quality of life with us.
You declare:
"You want to be further left. We want to be further left. In point of fact, the American people want us to be further left if you analyze by issue stands.
"Your answer is that protecting the Democrats won't keep us from being further right because the Republicans aren't appreciably further right than the Democrats."
So you, kosh, assert that the good that is being done by the Dems is enough for now. I assert that by enabling the Dems we keep an ever-reduced quality of life and give up the opportunity to make positive recovery and change. I'm not fighting for "purity", I am fighting for real change based on principles and morality. And that kind of change demands numbers, people willing to make shock waves directed to the Dem Party to seriously change it or replace it. To start representing the people, the working class, the disenfranchised and marginalized.
The leadership will happen. If you bail on the Dem Party the momentum of collective moral conscience will be felt ... not just in America but around the world. We need pro-action. We need citizen identity. We need to demand that a rising tide raise all boats.
Will this be the Green Party. The Socialist Equality Party. Another Party? I don't know. But these third parties don't have a shot if the majority of pro-Dem party progressives are going to put their arms across their chests and demand to be shown the force for change, when they are needed to become a part of the force of change, otherwise it won't be a force. The leap must be made by all of us.
This isn't a bridge today. But it is something. A sharing.
Thank you. I will keep pondering it all as I know you will. To be continued by us and others.
best, libby
Eloquent Jan. Your sensibility and metaphor resonate for me:
"If a house is on fire, the first and most important thing is to let people know. If you can put out the fire that's a plus but being aware of the fire is the main thing. Some people in the middle of a house burning down may decide that if they spit it helps and that is better than nothing. No doubt it is better than nothing but I personally would look for better solutions. The lesser evil people aren't looking."
end of your quote
Instead of spitting, may i adjust it to they turn on the a/c in an attempt to prolong a sensibility of safety in a house that is burning down but the cool air will allow them to feel comfort a tad longer and collectively deny that the fire is coming for them and their families and social networks, too. And better they should get out and rescue themselves, even though the reckoning of destruction of said building will be difficult for them and a rebuilding challenging, but it is the difference in facing down reality sooner rather than later, later will mean utter destruction and death!
best, libby
"If a house is on fire, the first and most important thing is to let people know. If you can put out the fire that's a plus but being aware of the fire is the main thing. Some people in the middle of a house burning down may decide that if they spit it helps and that is better than nothing. No doubt it is better than nothing but I personally would look for better solutions. The lesser evil people aren't looking."
end of your quote
Instead of spitting, may i adjust it to they turn on the a/c in an attempt to prolong a sensibility of safety in a house that is burning down but the cool air will allow them to feel comfort a tad longer and collectively deny that the fire is coming for them and their families and social networks, too. And better they should get out and rescue themselves, even though the reckoning of destruction of said building will be difficult for them and a rebuilding challenging, but it is the difference in facing down reality sooner rather than later, later will mean utter destruction and death!
best, libby
Thanks for popping by ANFSCD!!!
You eloquently write:
"No point in arguing with a person's religion. No amount of facts will change anything because he/she has a rationalization for everything already. In fact, I think "rationalizer" would be the appropriate term for the mentality you wish to address, i.e. people who are irrational in the name of being rational.
"Truth is its own reward. I understand the statement: "No one's going to get elected telling the truth." But that does not then justify supporting liars, which is, in fact, truly loony. That's in nobody's interest - except maybe for the other liars (in the short term anyway)."
end of your quote
YES YES YES
You know going back to Jan's metaphor of people in the burning house denying how dire their situation is, I also think of the story about the baby elephant tethered by a rope to a tree trunk when young and the baby elephant cannot escape when it tries. But as the baby elephant grows up and becomes a mighty elephant, the conditioned mindset of the elephant believes that it still cannot escape and doesn't try to use its true strength to separate. That is how I see people like me who grow up in dysfunctional homes and don't have a sense of empowerment when they become adults and have opportunities for happiness and success because they have been brainwashed to believe they are not free and they must fight such conditioning, and that is how I see too many citizens who take their marching orders from an idiot box and sell-out pols who are serving sociopathic corporate agendas for power and money and don't flex their own true mighty power in terms of numbers and passionate commitment to change.
best, libby
You eloquently write:
"No point in arguing with a person's religion. No amount of facts will change anything because he/she has a rationalization for everything already. In fact, I think "rationalizer" would be the appropriate term for the mentality you wish to address, i.e. people who are irrational in the name of being rational.
"Truth is its own reward. I understand the statement: "No one's going to get elected telling the truth." But that does not then justify supporting liars, which is, in fact, truly loony. That's in nobody's interest - except maybe for the other liars (in the short term anyway)."
end of your quote
YES YES YES
You know going back to Jan's metaphor of people in the burning house denying how dire their situation is, I also think of the story about the baby elephant tethered by a rope to a tree trunk when young and the baby elephant cannot escape when it tries. But as the baby elephant grows up and becomes a mighty elephant, the conditioned mindset of the elephant believes that it still cannot escape and doesn't try to use its true strength to separate. That is how I see people like me who grow up in dysfunctional homes and don't have a sense of empowerment when they become adults and have opportunities for happiness and success because they have been brainwashed to believe they are not free and they must fight such conditioning, and that is how I see too many citizens who take their marching orders from an idiot box and sell-out pols who are serving sociopathic corporate agendas for power and money and don't flex their own true mighty power in terms of numbers and passionate commitment to change.
best, libby
Friend commenters, I gotta grab some sleep before I can go on with comments. Sorry. I know it is important to try to get back to comments on the first bounce but I am tuckered out from work. I appreciate the feedback and trust it will help me be more aware and sensitive. Thanks for your patience. Will be back later in day. best, libby
Hi Libby
Thanks for responding.
I don't think the Democrats are good enough for now. I think they're the best alternative we can hope to get or keep in office in appreciable numbers for now.
I also think that the Democratic Party does not equal the Obama administration. I think it is Obama and, in this particular case given his personal history with Clinton, Holder who are responsible for keeping bankers unprosecuted. By the way, bankers are still foreclosing, in some cases on people whose mortgages are current. Big flap on NPR today about it.
You won't increase your support as long as you don't address the concerns of the people you're trying to persuade. Abrawang asked you a series of questions that's decently representative of the audience I think you're trying to reach.
There are all sorts of people in America and on OS who want this country to be more like you want it to be. However, we have specific fears. We are worried that if we just vote Green or whatever, our vote will result directly in increased suffering for the general population.
Some of this suffering is pretty significant, and I mean what I might call the Difference Suffering. In my state, it involves people going hungry, children getting a far worse education, and many poor rural voters losing their ability to vote.
There is also another issue: the Supreme Court. That institution makes structural changes that last for years, decades, centuries. We have been one Justice short of the Court continuously practicing justice. The big structural problem the US has politically is the influence of money on politics. If that problem isn't corrected, I would not place bets on this government surviving indefinitely. We could kick the can far enough down the road to fail to prevent the destruction of the United States if we give up control of the White House because we want to make a statement.
In some ways, the case you're making amounts to:
So the Supreme Court swings Right and stays there. So people in your state don't eat, don't vote, don't get educated, don't get abortions. So people currently in the margins don't get healthcare and die as a result. We are in such desperate straits that that is a small price to pay for fundamental change, and fundamental change becomes more likely if more people are miserable.
Is that your case? If so, please make it.
But understand that that will result in the case being examined. The Republicans are less concerned with disenfranchisement and civil liberties. They have a Supreme Court majority. They have NSA surveillance. They aren't squeamish about disenfranchising voters for political reasons. If we voluntarily leave, we may no longer have the ability to get back in.
If we do get in with a third party, we then have to worry about what governing will do to that party, but the bigger task is getting in to begin with.
Thanks for responding.
I don't think the Democrats are good enough for now. I think they're the best alternative we can hope to get or keep in office in appreciable numbers for now.
I also think that the Democratic Party does not equal the Obama administration. I think it is Obama and, in this particular case given his personal history with Clinton, Holder who are responsible for keeping bankers unprosecuted. By the way, bankers are still foreclosing, in some cases on people whose mortgages are current. Big flap on NPR today about it.
You won't increase your support as long as you don't address the concerns of the people you're trying to persuade. Abrawang asked you a series of questions that's decently representative of the audience I think you're trying to reach.
There are all sorts of people in America and on OS who want this country to be more like you want it to be. However, we have specific fears. We are worried that if we just vote Green or whatever, our vote will result directly in increased suffering for the general population.
Some of this suffering is pretty significant, and I mean what I might call the Difference Suffering. In my state, it involves people going hungry, children getting a far worse education, and many poor rural voters losing their ability to vote.
There is also another issue: the Supreme Court. That institution makes structural changes that last for years, decades, centuries. We have been one Justice short of the Court continuously practicing justice. The big structural problem the US has politically is the influence of money on politics. If that problem isn't corrected, I would not place bets on this government surviving indefinitely. We could kick the can far enough down the road to fail to prevent the destruction of the United States if we give up control of the White House because we want to make a statement.
In some ways, the case you're making amounts to:
So the Supreme Court swings Right and stays there. So people in your state don't eat, don't vote, don't get educated, don't get abortions. So people currently in the margins don't get healthcare and die as a result. We are in such desperate straits that that is a small price to pay for fundamental change, and fundamental change becomes more likely if more people are miserable.
Is that your case? If so, please make it.
But understand that that will result in the case being examined. The Republicans are less concerned with disenfranchisement and civil liberties. They have a Supreme Court majority. They have NSA surveillance. They aren't squeamish about disenfranchising voters for political reasons. If we voluntarily leave, we may no longer have the ability to get back in.
If we do get in with a third party, we then have to worry about what governing will do to that party, but the bigger task is getting in to begin with.
Re kosh back to Jan re "the status quo sucks."
And if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
Obama as a recipient of racist backlash. That is wrong and enraging and shows how limited too many Americans are and it is important to call out the racism.
kosh you write Obama has governed "from a far more conservative place than most of his Democratic supporters were prepared for." You say "more conservative", I say "evil and murderous and cronyistic to sociopathic capitalists." In fact I say a "sociopathic place" and those enabling him are participating in "collective sociopathy." Like the German citizens supporting Nazism.
Obama hit with a colossal load of crap after Bush, yes. Obama promoted the same crap and added a lot of new vile and evil (same letters in both words) crap. Yes.
I hope you are not going near conflating those who attack him out of racism and those who attack him for lack of morality as showing parallel psychological imbalance?
Defending the president against racist attacks is one thing. Defending the president for his policies as a president is quite another.
I must be missing your point. I don't go after Obama because I am a racist. I don't give him a free ride for evil policies because he happens to be a Black man.
best, libby
And if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
Obama as a recipient of racist backlash. That is wrong and enraging and shows how limited too many Americans are and it is important to call out the racism.
kosh you write Obama has governed "from a far more conservative place than most of his Democratic supporters were prepared for." You say "more conservative", I say "evil and murderous and cronyistic to sociopathic capitalists." In fact I say a "sociopathic place" and those enabling him are participating in "collective sociopathy." Like the German citizens supporting Nazism.
Obama hit with a colossal load of crap after Bush, yes. Obama promoted the same crap and added a lot of new vile and evil (same letters in both words) crap. Yes.
I hope you are not going near conflating those who attack him out of racism and those who attack him for lack of morality as showing parallel psychological imbalance?
Defending the president against racist attacks is one thing. Defending the president for his policies as a president is quite another.
I must be missing your point. I don't go after Obama because I am a racist. I don't give him a free ride for evil policies because he happens to be a Black man.
best, libby
Fred, thanks for commenting. You sound like Mark Twain. Well said.
Amy, thanks for coming by!!
You write to kosh:
"You are ONCE AGAIN basically saying that the only way a bridge can be built or utilized is for all of us to "compromise (I actually prefer the word prostitute, but whatever...) our ethic, values and morals and do just as you wish and vote for a bunch of Centralist DINO's who have a completely different set of values than we do."
[libby: yes, it comes down to values and of course there is backlash calling out the values of people in this community, even in generalized terms]
More Amy:
For me, at least, the only viable option is to walk away from both of the parties that want me dead and work to elect someone who doesn't believe that way.
[libby: I worked for the Dem party on and off during my life and believed that the Dem party represented the working class and exercised more of a humanitarian conscience as compared to the Republican party. It was an easy and belated decision to leave the Dem Party and join the Green Party. It was an act of conscience and from a citizen identity!]
From Amy again, and this offers hope for me:
"BTW, as for the thoroughly bullshit contention that 3rd party candidates will never win, that would only be true if said 3rd parties weren't growing so rapidly. The Green Party is the fastest growing party in the US. The number of Green votes goes WAY up each and every election cycle while the Dems and Rethug number of votes decline. Why do you suppose that is?"
end of quote
Thanks, Amy. I appreciate your anger and your sensibility on the enabling of a party and administration that carries out unconscionable acts!!
best, libby
You write to kosh:
"You are ONCE AGAIN basically saying that the only way a bridge can be built or utilized is for all of us to "compromise (I actually prefer the word prostitute, but whatever...) our ethic, values and morals and do just as you wish and vote for a bunch of Centralist DINO's who have a completely different set of values than we do."
[libby: yes, it comes down to values and of course there is backlash calling out the values of people in this community, even in generalized terms]
More Amy:
For me, at least, the only viable option is to walk away from both of the parties that want me dead and work to elect someone who doesn't believe that way.
[libby: I worked for the Dem party on and off during my life and believed that the Dem party represented the working class and exercised more of a humanitarian conscience as compared to the Republican party. It was an easy and belated decision to leave the Dem Party and join the Green Party. It was an act of conscience and from a citizen identity!]
From Amy again, and this offers hope for me:
"BTW, as for the thoroughly bullshit contention that 3rd party candidates will never win, that would only be true if said 3rd parties weren't growing so rapidly. The Green Party is the fastest growing party in the US. The number of Green votes goes WAY up each and every election cycle while the Dems and Rethug number of votes decline. Why do you suppose that is?"
end of quote
Thanks, Amy. I appreciate your anger and your sensibility on the enabling of a party and administration that carries out unconscionable acts!!
best, libby
Bill,
The populists need to vote for third parties, not for the Dems.
Do you maintain that populists are necessarily Democrats and that the Democrats offer representation for populists? Sadly they do not, often in not only a national dimension but state and local. Sadly too many of us citizens stay detached from local politics too much, myself included. Pete Seeger said think globally, act locally.
I don't agree that the case for working from within and moving leftward has always worked. We are no longer at that point with such potential is my contention. Fascism has hardened fast and been institutionalized by both main and corporate parties working for overlords that constitute their donor base. Corporatism has sociopathic priorities and corporatism has completely saturated our political system.
Assault from the left emboldens the right you say. I say stop looking left and right at fellow citizens. Start looking up and down at the top 1% and the bottom 99%.
Could Hitler's Naziism have been mollified from the inside? Speaking of which our government is supporting fascism/neo-nazism in Ukraine. This is the alarming realpolitik of this administration and government.
best, libby
The populists need to vote for third parties, not for the Dems.
Do you maintain that populists are necessarily Democrats and that the Democrats offer representation for populists? Sadly they do not, often in not only a national dimension but state and local. Sadly too many of us citizens stay detached from local politics too much, myself included. Pete Seeger said think globally, act locally.
I don't agree that the case for working from within and moving leftward has always worked. We are no longer at that point with such potential is my contention. Fascism has hardened fast and been institutionalized by both main and corporate parties working for overlords that constitute their donor base. Corporatism has sociopathic priorities and corporatism has completely saturated our political system.
Assault from the left emboldens the right you say. I say stop looking left and right at fellow citizens. Start looking up and down at the top 1% and the bottom 99%.
Could Hitler's Naziism have been mollified from the inside? Speaking of which our government is supporting fascism/neo-nazism in Ukraine. This is the alarming realpolitik of this administration and government.
best, libby
Another great quote from Amy:
"Everyone to the left of Centralist is NOT a Democrat, a Democratic " temporary defector" or a "maybe" Democrat. There is a LOT of us (and the number is growing rapidly) that have washed our hands of "death by multiple small wounds" lesser evilism that is the hallmark of the Democratic party. We "ain't" your party, we never will be again and OUR numbers are growing, while your Centralist DINO asses are bemoaning poor turn out and/or are "cooking the books" to FORCE a kabuki two party only party on people like states like California are doing."
"Everyone to the left of Centralist is NOT a Democrat, a Democratic " temporary defector" or a "maybe" Democrat. There is a LOT of us (and the number is growing rapidly) that have washed our hands of "death by multiple small wounds" lesser evilism that is the hallmark of the Democratic party. We "ain't" your party, we never will be again and OUR numbers are growing, while your Centralist DINO asses are bemoaning poor turn out and/or are "cooking the books" to FORCE a kabuki two party only party on people like states like California are doing."
You know, "fastest growing" basically means that it is really small.
Some examples. If it is 40,000 voters, and it grows 100% to 80,000 voters, it is probably the fastest growing party...and a statistical blip.
It is 1000 voters and it grows to 5000 voters, then THAT is the fastest growing, and even less significant than 80,000 voters.
If it is 30 voters, and growns to 270 voters, it is by far the "fastest growing party", and it is not a drop in the ocean. Not trying to throw water on belief, but "fastest growing" tends to mean insignificant. It usually means small. Fastest growing is a comparison to itself, versus another party compared to itself.
Some examples. If it is 40,000 voters, and it grows 100% to 80,000 voters, it is probably the fastest growing party...and a statistical blip.
It is 1000 voters and it grows to 5000 voters, then THAT is the fastest growing, and even less significant than 80,000 voters.
If it is 30 voters, and growns to 270 voters, it is by far the "fastest growing party", and it is not a drop in the ocean. Not trying to throw water on belief, but "fastest growing" tends to mean insignificant. It usually means small. Fastest growing is a comparison to itself, versus another party compared to itself.
FM, thanks so much for stopping.
You write referencing kosh:
"Can they get to public office? If they got to public office, would they really present that alternative? After all, there are Democrats who started out thinking that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative, but most haven't managed to do that, at least not effectively. Why would the forces acting on Democrats not be in play on Greens?
"THAT in a nutshell is the issue. The system is rigged. This isn't overstating because this is how our system and our rules of governing have evolved over time. Politics has rigged itself because it can vote laws that benefit politicians."
end of quote
Jefferson said the cost of democracy is eternal vigilance. We as citizens failed each other and future generations tragically by not sustaining vigilance. The anti-Vietnam boomers of which I am one have let the country and ourselves down. I look back and I recognize when I was young and protesting my parents' generation watched us with some dismay but remoteness the same as the OWS movement was watched, criticized and not actively supported by the older generation.
We have consumer identities NOT citizen identities, too many of us!!
You conflate the Tea Partiers with the leftist third parties. That is not fair. I appreciate the non-astro-turfed but confused and justifiably angry Republican voters who have every right to feel screwed and are being ever more screwed by our government's grotesquely criminal mismanagement. And I hate they are manipulated by Koch brothers etc. expensively paid propagandizing.
Jill Stein of Green Party refused to take corporate funding. IF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA had included her in its news, I contend that the moral issues and pro-citizen recovery Green New Deal policies would have been embraced by many. But without that corporate money for ads and with the corporate monopolization of mainstream media (which would have definitely given her name recognition to promote issues across America and remind voters they did have a viable third choice) she was iced out so totally. It actually proved to me how terrified they -- the corporatists and Repubs and Dems -- were of Dr. Stein and other populist candidates. As for Stein, she exercised consistently such amazing grace and intelligence and common sense, in fact when Stein challenged Romney in MA for gov and "won" per the critical pundits the debate against him, called the "only adult in the room", her attendance in the national presidential debate would have been powerful, but that was not allowed to happen in rigged political system fascist corporatist America.
FM, we don't need corporate funding for Greens. We need to get dirty money out of politics for all the parties. But corporatists have bribed and infected all three branches of the government and the media.
We have to rescue ourselves as citizens. We are no longer represented by anyone in government or the mainstream media. But we have to be aware and informed and not vulnerable to mass media propaganda.
We have a voice, FM. But that voice can not be found in the idiot box any more, and too many learned helpless citizens are not rallying with each other as a grass roots movement. OWS tried but too many of the older generation watched the younger generation within OWS struggle and rally and did not respect it enough to join in and give it more muscle.
FM, you passionately ask:
"Those of you who work for the greens believe in the sanctity of your party but I will predict that even if they gain power, you will lose your party. Does anyone really believe any idealistic party can stand up to the pressures that have destroyed our American system?"
end of your quote
There are no guarantees. Parties are run by people and I believe most people in the third parties of the left have their morals and values straight. And I think more and more people will join them and be standup. I think it is tragic that more and more people suffer while the clock ticks awaiting awareness of enough Americans. like how so many SE Asians and troops suffered and died while the US citizens figured out how amoral the Vietnam War was. Now the history of the Vietnam War is being rewritten by the neocons and neolibs.
Another passionate paragraph from you:
"In the meantime it is sucking dry the planets natural resources by funding opposition to any regulations or changes that might benefit future generations. We can't even agree about "global warming" and greenhouse gases."
end of your quote
Now, when you say that left and far left are at each other's throats, that is true and sad. But I don't think it is pointless or necessarily inevitable. And I think there is a moral blindness in the "near left" as kosh calls it that needs to be acknowledged by them before real recovery can possibly happen.
As for my iconoclastic call outs on morality, I think we need our citizens to fulfill many roles. The iconoclast one at open salon is one that intuitively I am drawn to. So it goes.
Great commenting, my friend. Thanks for showing up.
best, libby
You write referencing kosh:
"Can they get to public office? If they got to public office, would they really present that alternative? After all, there are Democrats who started out thinking that if they got to public office, they would present that alternative, but most haven't managed to do that, at least not effectively. Why would the forces acting on Democrats not be in play on Greens?
"THAT in a nutshell is the issue. The system is rigged. This isn't overstating because this is how our system and our rules of governing have evolved over time. Politics has rigged itself because it can vote laws that benefit politicians."
end of quote
Jefferson said the cost of democracy is eternal vigilance. We as citizens failed each other and future generations tragically by not sustaining vigilance. The anti-Vietnam boomers of which I am one have let the country and ourselves down. I look back and I recognize when I was young and protesting my parents' generation watched us with some dismay but remoteness the same as the OWS movement was watched, criticized and not actively supported by the older generation.
We have consumer identities NOT citizen identities, too many of us!!
You conflate the Tea Partiers with the leftist third parties. That is not fair. I appreciate the non-astro-turfed but confused and justifiably angry Republican voters who have every right to feel screwed and are being ever more screwed by our government's grotesquely criminal mismanagement. And I hate they are manipulated by Koch brothers etc. expensively paid propagandizing.
Jill Stein of Green Party refused to take corporate funding. IF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA had included her in its news, I contend that the moral issues and pro-citizen recovery Green New Deal policies would have been embraced by many. But without that corporate money for ads and with the corporate monopolization of mainstream media (which would have definitely given her name recognition to promote issues across America and remind voters they did have a viable third choice) she was iced out so totally. It actually proved to me how terrified they -- the corporatists and Repubs and Dems -- were of Dr. Stein and other populist candidates. As for Stein, she exercised consistently such amazing grace and intelligence and common sense, in fact when Stein challenged Romney in MA for gov and "won" per the critical pundits the debate against him, called the "only adult in the room", her attendance in the national presidential debate would have been powerful, but that was not allowed to happen in rigged political system fascist corporatist America.
FM, we don't need corporate funding for Greens. We need to get dirty money out of politics for all the parties. But corporatists have bribed and infected all three branches of the government and the media.
We have to rescue ourselves as citizens. We are no longer represented by anyone in government or the mainstream media. But we have to be aware and informed and not vulnerable to mass media propaganda.
We have a voice, FM. But that voice can not be found in the idiot box any more, and too many learned helpless citizens are not rallying with each other as a grass roots movement. OWS tried but too many of the older generation watched the younger generation within OWS struggle and rally and did not respect it enough to join in and give it more muscle.
FM, you passionately ask:
"Those of you who work for the greens believe in the sanctity of your party but I will predict that even if they gain power, you will lose your party. Does anyone really believe any idealistic party can stand up to the pressures that have destroyed our American system?"
end of your quote
There are no guarantees. Parties are run by people and I believe most people in the third parties of the left have their morals and values straight. And I think more and more people will join them and be standup. I think it is tragic that more and more people suffer while the clock ticks awaiting awareness of enough Americans. like how so many SE Asians and troops suffered and died while the US citizens figured out how amoral the Vietnam War was. Now the history of the Vietnam War is being rewritten by the neocons and neolibs.
Another passionate paragraph from you:
"In the meantime it is sucking dry the planets natural resources by funding opposition to any regulations or changes that might benefit future generations. We can't even agree about "global warming" and greenhouse gases."
end of your quote
Now, when you say that left and far left are at each other's throats, that is true and sad. But I don't think it is pointless or necessarily inevitable. And I think there is a moral blindness in the "near left" as kosh calls it that needs to be acknowledged by them before real recovery can possibly happen.
As for my iconoclastic call outs on morality, I think we need our citizens to fulfill many roles. The iconoclast one at open salon is one that intuitively I am drawn to. So it goes.
Great commenting, my friend. Thanks for showing up.
best, libby
thanks, sky, always appreciate your support!!!
AKA, thanks for commenting. Yes, there are perks in Obamacare. But, sadly there are so many loopholes and extortionist traps within it -- so little regulation of price fixing on vulnerable Americans. And if you see what I have quoted late in this thread from Kate Randall, the prices for Obamacare will be skyrocketing!
And I do mourn seriously the loss of universal healthcare that as Michael Moore showed with his movie SICKO had been facilitated by so many other industrial nations it was appalling that the US never felt such responsibility for all of its citizens.
best, libby
And I do mourn seriously the loss of universal healthcare that as Michael Moore showed with his movie SICKO had been facilitated by so many other industrial nations it was appalling that the US never felt such responsibility for all of its citizens.
best, libby
Libby,
God, No, that is NOT the point I'm making. In fact, if you scroll up, I make the point you just made in answer to it! Please see comment Nov. 17 11:30 AM, reply to Jan. I am not, repeat not, accusing you of racism.
I just wrote a long comment but got to a question at the end of it and realized that the question by itself is my best point. The question is:
What is the most effective way we have of minimizing suffering?
Now, understand that a list of the ways Democrats (whichever Democrats you're looking at, being as the Administration and the Party are not identical) make the country and the world suffer does not answer the question. Let me repeat that, because it's critical for this discussion:
A list of the way Democrats make people suffer does not answer the question,
no matter how long it gets.
It can't answer the question, because the question is by nature comparative. Minimizing suffering is by definition compared to more maximized suffering. If you are trying to minimize suffering, then the logical thing to do is to make the choice that minimizes suffering most completely, most effectively, most comprehensively.
If you ask that question:
What is the most effective way we have of minimizing suffering?
We will all have common ground.
God, No, that is NOT the point I'm making. In fact, if you scroll up, I make the point you just made in answer to it! Please see comment Nov. 17 11:30 AM, reply to Jan. I am not, repeat not, accusing you of racism.
I just wrote a long comment but got to a question at the end of it and realized that the question by itself is my best point. The question is:
What is the most effective way we have of minimizing suffering?
Now, understand that a list of the ways Democrats (whichever Democrats you're looking at, being as the Administration and the Party are not identical) make the country and the world suffer does not answer the question. Let me repeat that, because it's critical for this discussion:
A list of the way Democrats make people suffer does not answer the question,
no matter how long it gets.
It can't answer the question, because the question is by nature comparative. Minimizing suffering is by definition compared to more maximized suffering. If you are trying to minimize suffering, then the logical thing to do is to make the choice that minimizes suffering most completely, most effectively, most comprehensively.
If you ask that question:
What is the most effective way we have of minimizing suffering?
We will all have common ground.
James Hart, thanks for comment!
"Fake typists! Bullhorn wannabes!"
end of your quote
Hah -- you got the poetic gift, man. Not the first time displayed!
I think the arguing, annoying and uncomfortable as it is, and discourteous as it can unhappily get at times, needs to happen. But you are right, while it goes on, important things are missed that deserve collective compassion and pro-active humanitarianism.
best, libby
"Fake typists! Bullhorn wannabes!"
end of your quote
Hah -- you got the poetic gift, man. Not the first time displayed!
I think the arguing, annoying and uncomfortable as it is, and discourteous as it can unhappily get at times, needs to happen. But you are right, while it goes on, important things are missed that deserve collective compassion and pro-active humanitarianism.
best, libby
mark, I don't have it in me to explore your historical posting. I know the issues of one blog are related to the debates on other blogs and threads. but I am getting to these comments belatedly due to IRL logistics and want to deal with current feedback as best I can. best, libby
cryptic james hart:
MidgeinTokyo
Move toward the red dot.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
end of quote
you part my hair with such talk!
MidgeinTokyo
Move toward the red dot.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
end of quote
you part my hair with such talk!
AKA, I am afraid I have disappointed many in this blog re Tom Cordle's "What's the Difference" one. I wanted to support a more cordial discussion among all of us, which I lapsed from in my own early comments, sigh. I did not write it upon studying Tom's frequent and popular blogs, it was more shooting from the hip and copying my comment from Tom's thread into a big blog because some time had passed. Once Tom called me loony libby I did not have the ego fortitude to follow his commentaries. But I wanted to answer back with my own beliefs to some of his points about a comparison with the two major parties and a decision to be made by each of us. I recognize that my sweeping and deliberately provocative moral judgments are off-putting over the years. They come from my frustration and confusion and anger long-term why there has not been more outrage among obviously smart and seemingly moral American citizens like on open salon, and why there seems imho a certain myopia and overtrust with mainstream media as well as an incredible amount of slack given to this President who has done incredible damage to us as a constitutional republic. Can anyone argue with that?
Thanks for hearing my modest, perhaps, adjustment in tone but not significantly in principle which maybe was expected and hoped for.
best, libby
Thanks for hearing my modest, perhaps, adjustment in tone but not significantly in principle which maybe was expected and hoped for.
best, libby
sorry, have to leave for a little bit. will be back!!! :-)
TL, always so great to hear your wise and eloquent take.
You write "Rationalism and Logic are not truth" and you refer to "moral relativism." Hitting all the important nails on the head!! Well done. You write "... Moral relativism is very rational and logical, They involve the use of words used to deceive. Putting up with a little evil for a greater good is a fallacy resulting in greater evil. Choosing the lesser of two evils is another fallacy again resulting in greater evil."
You speak of "organized evil" which is a brilliant name for our current fascistic government with its corrupt crony criminal network. You also advise, "Don't let any of the manipulators and deceivers ever take that away from you." I won't, my friend. And I won't let the "manipulated and the deceived" also not take that way from me. Hard for them to forgive us messengers going after a numbed-out rationalizing status quo criminal-enabling group-think. And I will do my best to encourage more awakenings! :-) best, libby
You write "Rationalism and Logic are not truth" and you refer to "moral relativism." Hitting all the important nails on the head!! Well done. You write "... Moral relativism is very rational and logical, They involve the use of words used to deceive. Putting up with a little evil for a greater good is a fallacy resulting in greater evil. Choosing the lesser of two evils is another fallacy again resulting in greater evil."
You speak of "organized evil" which is a brilliant name for our current fascistic government with its corrupt crony criminal network. You also advise, "Don't let any of the manipulators and deceivers ever take that away from you." I won't, my friend. And I won't let the "manipulated and the deceived" also not take that way from me. Hard for them to forgive us messengers going after a numbed-out rationalizing status quo criminal-enabling group-think. And I will do my best to encourage more awakenings! :-) best, libby
mark, I long ago requested o/e not comment here so his staying away is not cowardly in my eyes but appreciated, even with an apparently negative blog about me. That's his turf, not mine. :-)
jmac! You write:
"As a person who has, at different stages of life, been an Indiana Republican, an "Objectivist" Libertarian and a "loony left" Socialist Green, let me point out that what was once repulsive racism, outrageous religious fundamentalism and libertarian lunacy to the mainstream Republican Party has now become entrenched in platform and Congressional policy. What, twenty years ago, were loony Green pillars of "social justice"and "ecological wisdom" have become policy in Democratic politics and legislation in the ACA/ Obamacare, tax incentives for Alternative Energy and dozens of other programs... The pendulum swings both ways."
More power to your ongoing open-mindedness.
I'm thinking, though, that the social justice and ecological wisdom and other programs you celebrate as being absorbed by the Dem Party long ago have come and gone, or are steadily still leaving from the Dem party. While gay marriage is being celebrated and I suspect some women's legislation will be processed by the Dems to help Hillary's coronation in 2016, the collusion of the Dem Party with their Donor Base, the upper .1% overlords to steal from American tax payers and from vulnerable countries across the globe in their imperialistic neoliberal (humanitarian intervention coverup) is a tragedy. best, libly
"As a person who has, at different stages of life, been an Indiana Republican, an "Objectivist" Libertarian and a "loony left" Socialist Green, let me point out that what was once repulsive racism, outrageous religious fundamentalism and libertarian lunacy to the mainstream Republican Party has now become entrenched in platform and Congressional policy. What, twenty years ago, were loony Green pillars of "social justice"and "ecological wisdom" have become policy in Democratic politics and legislation in the ACA/ Obamacare, tax incentives for Alternative Energy and dozens of other programs... The pendulum swings both ways."
More power to your ongoing open-mindedness.
I'm thinking, though, that the social justice and ecological wisdom and other programs you celebrate as being absorbed by the Dem Party long ago have come and gone, or are steadily still leaving from the Dem party. While gay marriage is being celebrated and I suspect some women's legislation will be processed by the Dems to help Hillary's coronation in 2016, the collusion of the Dem Party with their Donor Base, the upper .1% overlords to steal from American tax payers and from vulnerable countries across the globe in their imperialistic neoliberal (humanitarian intervention coverup) is a tragedy. best, libly
Whew! I thought I was in hot water with the neo-cons!
Speaking in terms of sustained irony as well as nihilistic
lee, it never ceases to amaze me:
Bikini Atoll
Peace to you and the whole kit&KAbootel posse, LLL
Speaking in terms of sustained irony as well as nihilistic
lee, it never ceases to amaze me:
Bikini Atoll
Peace to you and the whole kit&KAbootel posse, LLL
Bill, You write:
"Your moral conduct is an issue for your soul and your conduct. It may inform your civic duties, but it does not inform others civic duties."
What are you saying here? That individuals do not get to judge morality or immorality or amorality of others? When one sees one's government perpetrating criminal actions against other foreign citizens or its own, there is a responsibility -- an "ability to respond" on the part of a republic supposedly of, by and for the people. The people should have citizen identities and participate in protecting each other and the family of man, woman and child.
I don't know if you ever saw the movie Gentleman's Agreement with Gregory Peck. It is about anti-Semitism. It is an interesting movie in that at one point a Jewish man goes after the main characters who share how upset they get when others make anti-Semitic jokes and comments, but when confronted they admit that they often do not challenge their social cronies when they do that. I was trying to figure out the exact angle of the "Gentleman's Agreement" but I did find this in wikipedia:
"In addition to winning Academy Awards for best picture and best director, Gentleman's Agreement was one of Fox's highest grossing movies of 1947. The political nature of the film, however, upset the House Un-American Activities Committee, with Elia Kazan, Darryl Zanuck, John Garfield, and Anne Revere all being called to testify before the committee. Revere refused to testify and although Garfield appeared, he refused to "name names". Both were placed in the Red Channels of the Hollywood Blacklist. Garfield remained on the blacklist for a year, was called again to testify against his wife, and died of a heart attack at the age of 39 before his second hearing date."
end of quote
Sometimes the movies are way ahead of the reality.
Oh, here is a definition of a "gentlemen's agreement" which I assume means even if slanderous anti-Semitism or other racist rhetoric is uttered and is not illegal per se there is an honor code that among gentlemen and gentlewomen of all races and groups they should challenge such immoral rhetoric.
Here is one other interesting thing in wiki about the movie:
"Green (Gregory Peck) tells his mother that he's struck by the odd notion that the idea [him pretending to be Jewish] for the article came from "a girl" at the magazine. His mother replies, "Why, women will be thinking next"."
Hah!!!
best, libby
"Your moral conduct is an issue for your soul and your conduct. It may inform your civic duties, but it does not inform others civic duties."
What are you saying here? That individuals do not get to judge morality or immorality or amorality of others? When one sees one's government perpetrating criminal actions against other foreign citizens or its own, there is a responsibility -- an "ability to respond" on the part of a republic supposedly of, by and for the people. The people should have citizen identities and participate in protecting each other and the family of man, woman and child.
I don't know if you ever saw the movie Gentleman's Agreement with Gregory Peck. It is about anti-Semitism. It is an interesting movie in that at one point a Jewish man goes after the main characters who share how upset they get when others make anti-Semitic jokes and comments, but when confronted they admit that they often do not challenge their social cronies when they do that. I was trying to figure out the exact angle of the "Gentleman's Agreement" but I did find this in wikipedia:
"In addition to winning Academy Awards for best picture and best director, Gentleman's Agreement was one of Fox's highest grossing movies of 1947. The political nature of the film, however, upset the House Un-American Activities Committee, with Elia Kazan, Darryl Zanuck, John Garfield, and Anne Revere all being called to testify before the committee. Revere refused to testify and although Garfield appeared, he refused to "name names". Both were placed in the Red Channels of the Hollywood Blacklist. Garfield remained on the blacklist for a year, was called again to testify against his wife, and died of a heart attack at the age of 39 before his second hearing date."
end of quote
Sometimes the movies are way ahead of the reality.
Oh, here is a definition of a "gentlemen's agreement" which I assume means even if slanderous anti-Semitism or other racist rhetoric is uttered and is not illegal per se there is an honor code that among gentlemen and gentlewomen of all races and groups they should challenge such immoral rhetoric.
Here is one other interesting thing in wiki about the movie:
"Green (Gregory Peck) tells his mother that he's struck by the odd notion that the idea [him pretending to be Jewish] for the article came from "a girl" at the magazine. His mother replies, "Why, women will be thinking next"."
Hah!!!
best, libby
Stuart, I like your thinking on this. And sometimes I get a headache breaking these apart, anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. I know Ralph Nader wrote a recent book explaining how the conservative capitalists feel like the corporatists are giving them a bad name and ruining things for everyone and that the conservatives and progressives need to bond with this anger at corporatists. Nader is doing some serious bridging, though when he suggests billionaire one percenters run for prez he goes too far for my taste.
You write: "In my mind neither has anything to do with conventional notions of left-right or conservative-liberal dichotomies."
Yes. We keep in mind "astroturfing". I am in a wikipedia mode tonight:
"Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations more credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass, a play on the word "grassroots." The implication behind the use of the term is that there are no "true" or "natural" grassroots, but rather "fake" or "artificial" support, though some astroturfing operatives defend the practice (see Justification below).
"On the Internet, astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda.[1][2] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action."
When I was working for universal healthcare I began to send some of my FDL blogs to universal health care workers across the country. They grooved on my health care blogs but some were shocked and disturbed by my other leftie blogs. It showed me how naturally grass roots work on universal health care embraced all groups who got it, especially nurses and doctors but many other citizens and made me see how compromising groups can locally rally on mutual issues.
But dirty tricks happened to universal healthcare movement, especially with the sly Dems and the fake out with the public option, to marginalize all of us lefties, centrists and righties working on that pro-citizen position. And the near left progressives abandoned and even attacked the universal health care advocates as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and the hope of universal healthcare for the USA in our generation circled the bowl, with a Dem prez and Dem Congress.
Stuart, I am with you re viewing Hillary Clinton, Kissinger hugger, Israel apologist, and BFF of Goldman Sachs and other corporate overlords. Also, the sins she participated in as SoS have now dropped down the American memory hole. Also, her outrageousness re Honduras coup, labeling Putin Hitler, the vilification of Iran, embracing the neocon/neolib rapacious MidEast military policy, etc., etc, etc..
Kucinich was one of the last true Congressional liberals and Obama, Dems and the Repubs made short work of him.
best, libby
You write: "In my mind neither has anything to do with conventional notions of left-right or conservative-liberal dichotomies."
Yes. We keep in mind "astroturfing". I am in a wikipedia mode tonight:
"Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations more credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass, a play on the word "grassroots." The implication behind the use of the term is that there are no "true" or "natural" grassroots, but rather "fake" or "artificial" support, though some astroturfing operatives defend the practice (see Justification below).
"On the Internet, astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda.[1][2] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action."
When I was working for universal healthcare I began to send some of my FDL blogs to universal health care workers across the country. They grooved on my health care blogs but some were shocked and disturbed by my other leftie blogs. It showed me how naturally grass roots work on universal health care embraced all groups who got it, especially nurses and doctors but many other citizens and made me see how compromising groups can locally rally on mutual issues.
But dirty tricks happened to universal healthcare movement, especially with the sly Dems and the fake out with the public option, to marginalize all of us lefties, centrists and righties working on that pro-citizen position. And the near left progressives abandoned and even attacked the universal health care advocates as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and the hope of universal healthcare for the USA in our generation circled the bowl, with a Dem prez and Dem Congress.
Stuart, I am with you re viewing Hillary Clinton, Kissinger hugger, Israel apologist, and BFF of Goldman Sachs and other corporate overlords. Also, the sins she participated in as SoS have now dropped down the American memory hole. Also, her outrageousness re Honduras coup, labeling Putin Hitler, the vilification of Iran, embracing the neocon/neolib rapacious MidEast military policy, etc., etc, etc..
Kucinich was one of the last true Congressional liberals and Obama, Dems and the Repubs made short work of him.
best, libby
kosh, you write rather passionately about encouraging the "good" that Dem Party does. But the Dems as far as I can see too often talk a talk they don't walk. Obama seems far more concerned about impression management and plugging up embarrassing leaks than addressing the profound needs of citizens in general or in specific groups. And the corporate media, more and more since Obama rewards the corporatists at the expense of the needs of the citizens, has their mainstream corporate media reward him by spinning what champions he and his administration are on behalf of ordinary citizens.
best, libby
best, libby
Libby,
Why do you keep going back to Obama? He's a lame duck President who does things that don't represent his whole party.
And going back to him doesn't address the question: What is the most effective way we have of minimizing suffering?
Why do you keep going back to Obama? He's a lame duck President who does things that don't represent his whole party.
And going back to him doesn't address the question: What is the most effective way we have of minimizing suffering?
Abra, at last!
You maintain that the people I am addressing at open salon are close to sharing my own policy positions which you list as rebalancing the tax system, cutting military spending, achieving universal health care, reducing carbon emissions and availability for abortion.
Yes, and no wonder they have gotten pissed off at me all these years for calling them out as not progressive enough. Stomped on their identities as progressives with my preaching and scolding.
Hmmmmm.
I guess I wanted more from the "progressives" and I saw the personality cult of Obama and the "hopium" after his election as Cindy Sheehan termed it, induce my fellow progressives to cut Obama too much slack, to make too many serious assumptions of how hard he was trying and too easily blaming the Republicans for obstructionism when the Dem Party and Obama were more covertly than the Republicans representing their 1% donor base and not the average Americans who had worked hard to put an alleged hoper and changer in the White House, thus triggering what I consider a collective entry into the 5 Stages of Post Obama Election Grief. Let's see: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. I think many are still stuck in there somewhere. Bargaining re lesser evilism one seems to have had a long shelf life.
Okay, going on, abra.
You write:
The political system at present is heavily stacked against third and fourth parties. It’s saturated with money that is largely unavailable to any except the Dems and Repubs. And the first past the post voting system means that votes for third parties never elect third parties. In a preferential voting system, “wasted” votes are defined out of existence. People who now vote either Repub or Dem because they’re the only ones likely to win would now be able to vote for their favorite while making a Dem or Repub their second or third choice. That would really open the door for third parties. But that looks to be a long way of as there doesn’t seem to be anything in the way of a popular movement to establish it.
end of your quote
YES YES YES, this sounds like a terrific election reform. Which as we all know the corporate parties and their overlords who make the decisions for this country now, won't permit that much balance in our voting unless we the people clamor for it and quit the Dem party to find a party that will work for that.
And you write about campaign finance reform:
"So that leaved campaign finance reform. And that means overturning a few Supreme decisions like Citizens United. The only way I can see this happening is with further Dem presidents appoint the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor. You know that a Repub pres would appoint someone like Scalia/Alito/Thomas."
end of your quote
I don't see Obama endorsing real liberal and real progressive Supremes, sorry. Yes, yes, yes, lesser evilism. But the bar of lesser evilism to enable sociopathic corporatist agendas keeps on lowering.
abra, I am resigned to being an iconoclast. Better at demolition of rotted out beyond belief political system called the Dem Party rather than focusing my writing a lot on foundations for and healthier ones, though I did do a lot of analysis re Stein's election platform in 2012. Though I know there are plenty of people out there like you who have a more appealing political temperament than mine. Those people, you included, will be the bridge builders.
I think I am like, though I didn't groove so much on that Kostner baseball movie, believer in "if you build it they will come" scenario. That eventually people will make it through the five stages of Obama and Dem Party grief and seek out a party which offers more social and economic justice. The degrees of injustice now are at surreal levels and worsening. It scares me the number of institutional government criminality (Bush got away with it but Obama is institutionalizing it by twisting the laws officially).
Abra, you write:
"For those favoring Stein, what is the roadmap for getting a third party candidate elected? What’s your best guess as to how many electoral cycles that would take, given the vast disparity of political funding and a voting system tiled against them?
end of quote
a lot
You write:
"Do you think that the differences in Supreme Court nominations is so inconsequential as to not be worthy of consideration?"
I think it is heartbreaking what Scalia and Alito and some of the others have done. But I think the Dem Party needs a cold-water in the face wake-up call to represent the people and not the corporate overlords.
You make compelling arguments, abra, but I stand by my desire to encourage a migration out of the Dem corporate party. If enough of a migration occurred maybe change would come even there though it is really late in the game. I am pessimistic about the Dem Party and I am optimistic that enough citizens will begin to get that playing either or with Dem and Republican parties are letting themselves be played by malicious "good cop/bad cop" gamesmen and gameswomen who are conning us, not representing our needs and our will.
You write:
"I haven’t argued with you on these points but I have with others who vote Green and I have yet to get a straight answer. It’s as though those questions that seem basic to me are outside the equation for others."
end of your quote
and back at ya, abra, what seem like basic questions to you -- I have my own separate but basic questions, how can so many progressives ignore or minimize:
1) prosecution of whistleblowers, 2) non-prosecution with slap on the wrist fines for corporate criminality including laundering Mexican drug cartel money and opium production in Afghanistan (well, that is overseen by the CIA apparently); the destruction of our fifth amendment right to a speedy trial -- to any trial if the tyrant-Prez wills it; the Obama adm. protecting BP's criminal negligence and letting it turn the Gulf of Mexico into a toilet; supporting illegal assassinations of Americans; the horrifying shoot to kill, and criminalization of dissent militarization of our police forces; the assault of real watchdog journalism in America by prosecuting journalists who refuse to disclose their sources; the NSA vast surveillance network invading our privacy; pretending to foster jobs and gaming the numbers, also posturing that the auto industry was saved when in reality hardwon salaries and benefits for auto workers were devastated; Obama talking the talk on immigration but deporting 2 million undocumented citizens, and letting thousands of their American born children go into foster care; targeting antiwar activists with FBI intimidation and bogus arrests; letting someone like Clapper commit a perjury felony without consequence; protecting the racism of overextensive and illegitimate heavy sentences for minorities; allowing innocent people or any people to continue to be tortured -- and even tortured with faux-humanitarian force feeding and forbidding media access to the Gitmo nightmare; the CIA spying and hacking computers of a Congressional committee investigating it and it getting away with it; shielding GM and its car defect that has killed throughout the years from accountability -- helping the coverup continue; letting the war and torture criminals of both Bush and Obama to be immune from prosecution; doing little to help the environment and lying to the UN (Obama) about US commitment; support of Nazis and fascists in Ukraine against Ukrainian people; ignoring and enabling the death and destruction of Palestinians; arranging the bankruptcy of Detroit for predatory disaster capitalists, etc, etc, etc!!!
So, abra, you finally write:
"Do you really think that decrying the Dems’ policy offenses and various shortcomings while strongly urging, to put it mildly, that disaffected Dems start voting Green too, is really the quickest way of achieving the policy ends we have in common?"
You say "shortcomings" I say gobsmacking amoral in your face criminality!!!
I think it is a way, third party. the only way right now given the degree of Dem Party corruption. The swamp of DC is up to the citizens lower lips.
I think we also have the mainstream corporate media as our biggest obstacle since so many of us Americans, myself included, get seduced by the 24/7 propaganda pouring out of the idiot box.
You know, I grew up in an alcoholic family and the entire family worked together to get a dysfunctional system that was hurtful to its members to continue to limp along and drain ALL OF US. The family system got weaker and more dysfunctional, more entrenched in the dysfunctionality, in the codependent obsession of trying to cope with the dangerousness of the addict's recklessness and neglect but with a resigned and learned helplessness and an over -focus on impression management rather than real HOPE AND CHANGE. It was a lose/lose/lose proposition for both parents and for the hostage children.
I see our Washington government as being that dysfunctional family. Call the Dems the codependent spouse if you like, but in a dysfunctional alcoholic family, the children get neglected and become dysfunctional because that is being rolemodeled for them. I see us the citizens as the neglected and crazymade hostage children of a profoundly dysfunctional addict/co-addict US governmental dynamic led by the amoral Prez and the amoral parties.
abra, you are an excellent debater. I am a determined iconoclast. I am also exhausted from answering all this. WTG!!!!
Thanks for the thoughtful offerings. They have raised my consciousness. And thanks for reminding me that so many on open salon do have similar values and goals to mine. I have often been flat-footed in my generalizations. That is very good consciousness raising for "loony libby"!!!
I figured the rest of you had the Republican sinning covered as well as MSNBC and I focused on the Dem sinning which I thought was getting too often too much of a pass.
best, libby
You maintain that the people I am addressing at open salon are close to sharing my own policy positions which you list as rebalancing the tax system, cutting military spending, achieving universal health care, reducing carbon emissions and availability for abortion.
Yes, and no wonder they have gotten pissed off at me all these years for calling them out as not progressive enough. Stomped on their identities as progressives with my preaching and scolding.
Hmmmmm.
I guess I wanted more from the "progressives" and I saw the personality cult of Obama and the "hopium" after his election as Cindy Sheehan termed it, induce my fellow progressives to cut Obama too much slack, to make too many serious assumptions of how hard he was trying and too easily blaming the Republicans for obstructionism when the Dem Party and Obama were more covertly than the Republicans representing their 1% donor base and not the average Americans who had worked hard to put an alleged hoper and changer in the White House, thus triggering what I consider a collective entry into the 5 Stages of Post Obama Election Grief. Let's see: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. I think many are still stuck in there somewhere. Bargaining re lesser evilism one seems to have had a long shelf life.
Okay, going on, abra.
You write:
The political system at present is heavily stacked against third and fourth parties. It’s saturated with money that is largely unavailable to any except the Dems and Repubs. And the first past the post voting system means that votes for third parties never elect third parties. In a preferential voting system, “wasted” votes are defined out of existence. People who now vote either Repub or Dem because they’re the only ones likely to win would now be able to vote for their favorite while making a Dem or Repub their second or third choice. That would really open the door for third parties. But that looks to be a long way of as there doesn’t seem to be anything in the way of a popular movement to establish it.
end of your quote
YES YES YES, this sounds like a terrific election reform. Which as we all know the corporate parties and their overlords who make the decisions for this country now, won't permit that much balance in our voting unless we the people clamor for it and quit the Dem party to find a party that will work for that.
And you write about campaign finance reform:
"So that leaved campaign finance reform. And that means overturning a few Supreme decisions like Citizens United. The only way I can see this happening is with further Dem presidents appoint the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor. You know that a Repub pres would appoint someone like Scalia/Alito/Thomas."
end of your quote
I don't see Obama endorsing real liberal and real progressive Supremes, sorry. Yes, yes, yes, lesser evilism. But the bar of lesser evilism to enable sociopathic corporatist agendas keeps on lowering.
abra, I am resigned to being an iconoclast. Better at demolition of rotted out beyond belief political system called the Dem Party rather than focusing my writing a lot on foundations for and healthier ones, though I did do a lot of analysis re Stein's election platform in 2012. Though I know there are plenty of people out there like you who have a more appealing political temperament than mine. Those people, you included, will be the bridge builders.
I think I am like, though I didn't groove so much on that Kostner baseball movie, believer in "if you build it they will come" scenario. That eventually people will make it through the five stages of Obama and Dem Party grief and seek out a party which offers more social and economic justice. The degrees of injustice now are at surreal levels and worsening. It scares me the number of institutional government criminality (Bush got away with it but Obama is institutionalizing it by twisting the laws officially).
Abra, you write:
"For those favoring Stein, what is the roadmap for getting a third party candidate elected? What’s your best guess as to how many electoral cycles that would take, given the vast disparity of political funding and a voting system tiled against them?
end of quote
a lot
You write:
"Do you think that the differences in Supreme Court nominations is so inconsequential as to not be worthy of consideration?"
I think it is heartbreaking what Scalia and Alito and some of the others have done. But I think the Dem Party needs a cold-water in the face wake-up call to represent the people and not the corporate overlords.
You make compelling arguments, abra, but I stand by my desire to encourage a migration out of the Dem corporate party. If enough of a migration occurred maybe change would come even there though it is really late in the game. I am pessimistic about the Dem Party and I am optimistic that enough citizens will begin to get that playing either or with Dem and Republican parties are letting themselves be played by malicious "good cop/bad cop" gamesmen and gameswomen who are conning us, not representing our needs and our will.
You write:
"I haven’t argued with you on these points but I have with others who vote Green and I have yet to get a straight answer. It’s as though those questions that seem basic to me are outside the equation for others."
end of your quote
and back at ya, abra, what seem like basic questions to you -- I have my own separate but basic questions, how can so many progressives ignore or minimize:
1) prosecution of whistleblowers, 2) non-prosecution with slap on the wrist fines for corporate criminality including laundering Mexican drug cartel money and opium production in Afghanistan (well, that is overseen by the CIA apparently); the destruction of our fifth amendment right to a speedy trial -- to any trial if the tyrant-Prez wills it; the Obama adm. protecting BP's criminal negligence and letting it turn the Gulf of Mexico into a toilet; supporting illegal assassinations of Americans; the horrifying shoot to kill, and criminalization of dissent militarization of our police forces; the assault of real watchdog journalism in America by prosecuting journalists who refuse to disclose their sources; the NSA vast surveillance network invading our privacy; pretending to foster jobs and gaming the numbers, also posturing that the auto industry was saved when in reality hardwon salaries and benefits for auto workers were devastated; Obama talking the talk on immigration but deporting 2 million undocumented citizens, and letting thousands of their American born children go into foster care; targeting antiwar activists with FBI intimidation and bogus arrests; letting someone like Clapper commit a perjury felony without consequence; protecting the racism of overextensive and illegitimate heavy sentences for minorities; allowing innocent people or any people to continue to be tortured -- and even tortured with faux-humanitarian force feeding and forbidding media access to the Gitmo nightmare; the CIA spying and hacking computers of a Congressional committee investigating it and it getting away with it; shielding GM and its car defect that has killed throughout the years from accountability -- helping the coverup continue; letting the war and torture criminals of both Bush and Obama to be immune from prosecution; doing little to help the environment and lying to the UN (Obama) about US commitment; support of Nazis and fascists in Ukraine against Ukrainian people; ignoring and enabling the death and destruction of Palestinians; arranging the bankruptcy of Detroit for predatory disaster capitalists, etc, etc, etc!!!
So, abra, you finally write:
"Do you really think that decrying the Dems’ policy offenses and various shortcomings while strongly urging, to put it mildly, that disaffected Dems start voting Green too, is really the quickest way of achieving the policy ends we have in common?"
You say "shortcomings" I say gobsmacking amoral in your face criminality!!!
I think it is a way, third party. the only way right now given the degree of Dem Party corruption. The swamp of DC is up to the citizens lower lips.
I think we also have the mainstream corporate media as our biggest obstacle since so many of us Americans, myself included, get seduced by the 24/7 propaganda pouring out of the idiot box.
You know, I grew up in an alcoholic family and the entire family worked together to get a dysfunctional system that was hurtful to its members to continue to limp along and drain ALL OF US. The family system got weaker and more dysfunctional, more entrenched in the dysfunctionality, in the codependent obsession of trying to cope with the dangerousness of the addict's recklessness and neglect but with a resigned and learned helplessness and an over -focus on impression management rather than real HOPE AND CHANGE. It was a lose/lose/lose proposition for both parents and for the hostage children.
I see our Washington government as being that dysfunctional family. Call the Dems the codependent spouse if you like, but in a dysfunctional alcoholic family, the children get neglected and become dysfunctional because that is being rolemodeled for them. I see us the citizens as the neglected and crazymade hostage children of a profoundly dysfunctional addict/co-addict US governmental dynamic led by the amoral Prez and the amoral parties.
abra, you are an excellent debater. I am a determined iconoclast. I am also exhausted from answering all this. WTG!!!!
Thanks for the thoughtful offerings. They have raised my consciousness. And thanks for reminding me that so many on open salon do have similar values and goals to mine. I have often been flat-footed in my generalizations. That is very good consciousness raising for "loony libby"!!!
I figured the rest of you had the Republican sinning covered as well as MSNBC and I focused on the Dem sinning which I thought was getting too often too much of a pass.
best, libby
Jan, you write:
"The problem with hoping the Democratic politicians will transform into representatives of the general public is that the majority of previously Democratic voters have lost faith in the party and the system. Two thirds of voters have refused to vote. It's not like the problem of God where you can't prove he doesn't exist. The non-existence of public minded politicians is all out in the open and recognized. If anybody is loony it's those keepers of the faith when the party has lost theirs.The whole damned system is defunct."
once again, well said!!
"The problem with hoping the Democratic politicians will transform into representatives of the general public is that the majority of previously Democratic voters have lost faith in the party and the system. Two thirds of voters have refused to vote. It's not like the problem of God where you can't prove he doesn't exist. The non-existence of public minded politicians is all out in the open and recognized. If anybody is loony it's those keepers of the faith when the party has lost theirs.The whole damned system is defunct."
once again, well said!!
kosh, you like abra and others above are quite eloquent and I appreciate your concern. I just see that we are being cornered by the "lesser evilism" scenario. That we have to put up with what the Dems deliver -- and yes, crumbs are better than not even crumbs when you are hungry -- so we don't have to deal with the rabid not even a crumb Republicans. I see the Dems as compromised as Obama/Holder/Clinton since lobbyists and big money are really calling the shots and our will and our needs are so little factored in. Dear God, look at the military budget!!! How Congress has never met a military budget it didn't like but 1 out of 4 kids can be hungry and 1 out of 30 can be homeless. In nyc last night temps were in the 20s, and I wondered how many homeless would die or become seriously ill from the merciless cold!!
I send you to my responses to abra since his points are similar to yours. I see us trapped by a merciless political system of captured by corporatism representatives who consider their donor base of the wealthy as who is worth taking care of and the rest of us as who must be spun with propaganda. 10% support of Congress or less. 30% support or less of the Dem party. Maybe 28% of the Repubs. and it doesn't seem to matter. Big money buys its own amoral policies to aggrandize wealth even if it means millions of lives home and abroad are devastated or destroyed.
And the mainstream corporate media encourages learned helplessness and focuses its tiny focus of a pen light on what manipulates on behalf of the wrecking ball ruling class elites despite realpolitik crises and massive injustices.
And I am sorry for being flatfooted and strident but I really do see Dem Party support as enabling an enemy posing as a protector and tried to be as pushy on this subject and cause as possible out of my own set of principles and perspective and experience.
best, libby
I send you to my responses to abra since his points are similar to yours. I see us trapped by a merciless political system of captured by corporatism representatives who consider their donor base of the wealthy as who is worth taking care of and the rest of us as who must be spun with propaganda. 10% support of Congress or less. 30% support or less of the Dem party. Maybe 28% of the Repubs. and it doesn't seem to matter. Big money buys its own amoral policies to aggrandize wealth even if it means millions of lives home and abroad are devastated or destroyed.
And the mainstream corporate media encourages learned helplessness and focuses its tiny focus of a pen light on what manipulates on behalf of the wrecking ball ruling class elites despite realpolitik crises and massive injustices.
And I am sorry for being flatfooted and strident but I really do see Dem Party support as enabling an enemy posing as a protector and tried to be as pushy on this subject and cause as possible out of my own set of principles and perspective and experience.
best, libby
kosh, imho, Obama more fascistic than Bush and Hillary will be more fascistic than Obama. This slippery slope has got to be stopped. Dem Party captured by overlords as much as the President. So is the SCOTUS.
best, libby
best, libby
((((James Hart)))))
GREAT response to abra, Libby.
Libby,
Are you in favor of doing this electorally or do you have a revolution in mind? I don't see a way of accomplishing what you have in mind electorally.
What I think about Democrats is this:
A lot of the Democratic constituency is liberal. A lot of Democratic officials ran for office with liberal principles in mind. Something about the process is decoupling officials from constituents. The process would be the same for Greens or anyone else.
What is a more feasible task: recoupling or replacing?
Contrary to what you keep saying, this is not all about Obama. Obama is about to leave. So, presumably, is Holder. Equating the party with the President constantly will not further this discussion.
I think there is an extent to which you are not answering Abra. The wake up call to the Democrats could leave us with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for a quarter of a century. That effectively maximizes the impact of money on elections for the foreseeable future.
Do you really think that the electoral process is the best way to go here? If not, do you have an alternative in mind?
And again I ask: what is the best way to minimize suffering?
Are you in favor of doing this electorally or do you have a revolution in mind? I don't see a way of accomplishing what you have in mind electorally.
What I think about Democrats is this:
A lot of the Democratic constituency is liberal. A lot of Democratic officials ran for office with liberal principles in mind. Something about the process is decoupling officials from constituents. The process would be the same for Greens or anyone else.
What is a more feasible task: recoupling or replacing?
Contrary to what you keep saying, this is not all about Obama. Obama is about to leave. So, presumably, is Holder. Equating the party with the President constantly will not further this discussion.
I think there is an extent to which you are not answering Abra. The wake up call to the Democrats could leave us with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for a quarter of a century. That effectively maximizes the impact of money on elections for the foreseeable future.
Do you really think that the electoral process is the best way to go here? If not, do you have an alternative in mind?
And again I ask: what is the best way to minimize suffering?
Well worded. I agree most heartily with just about everything you had to say with this post. (The rest of it I'll have to look into for further study--you are challenging to read, but it's all good)
:)
I especially liked this part:" its DONOR BASE, which is the SAME base as the Republicans, incidentally. The wealthy corporatists."
They aren't only in "lockstep," but have been secretly tromping down the American justice system as well as the financial future our children deserve.
I cannot see anything sane in the way our government has been treating us all now for decades. If we mattered at all, in truth, so many things would be righted, and civil wrongs undone.
And, on a more personal note, Mr. Cordle has shown a tendency before to avoid actual debate in favor of clinging to his already cemented ideas, as well as to mud-slinging and name-calling as tactics. very unbecoming of the so-called "intellectual crowd".
IMHO, that is.
I really respect the way you've handled this discussion thus far.
Keep up the good work
Peace to you
R
:)
I especially liked this part:" its DONOR BASE, which is the SAME base as the Republicans, incidentally. The wealthy corporatists."
They aren't only in "lockstep," but have been secretly tromping down the American justice system as well as the financial future our children deserve.
I cannot see anything sane in the way our government has been treating us all now for decades. If we mattered at all, in truth, so many things would be righted, and civil wrongs undone.
And, on a more personal note, Mr. Cordle has shown a tendency before to avoid actual debate in favor of clinging to his already cemented ideas, as well as to mud-slinging and name-calling as tactics. very unbecoming of the so-called "intellectual crowd".
IMHO, that is.
I really respect the way you've handled this discussion thus far.
Keep up the good work
Peace to you
R
And rated
Governance FOR THE PEOPLE, my ass. Jan Sand summarizes it well - "The whole damned system is defunct."
Libby, I hope your efforts for the people will be rewarded. R.
Libby, I hope your efforts for the people will be rewarded. R.
libby –thanks very much for your reply. It lays out pretty clearly where we differ, sort of like
You take the high road
And I’ll take the low road
And I’ll be in Scotland (or the New Jerusalem?) before ye
But let’s keep in touch along the way.
You take the high road
And I’ll take the low road
And I’ll be in Scotland (or the New Jerusalem?) before ye
But let’s keep in touch along the way.
Abra,
Here's my question:
Are we sure it's the high road?
So it's 2016, a close election in my state, and I vote Third Party. As a result, Republicans retain control of the legislature and the governorship. Unemployment benefits are kept short, people are hungry. Food stamp assistance is cut back, more people are hungry. Education is slashed yet again and a generation loses ground it will never make up. Thousands and thousands of poor rural voters can't vote because they don't have the transportation necessary to get voter ID's. Young ladies who need abortions can't generally get them because they'd need to be transported to a small city in the mountains where the only legal clinic in the state is. In Washington, a Republican gets into the White House and has the next two Supreme Court nominations. Both retiring justices are liberals, so the count on the next cause decided more on a political than a judicial basis (plus all cases involving campaign finance reform) is now 7-2, and it will take more than a generation to reverse this.
This is what my vote did. Some people here would say that I acted responsibly. I'm not so sure. I refused to vote for evil but, in doing so, I strengthened evil. The result of my action is that suffering Increased.
That doesn't look like a high road to me.
Here's my question:
Are we sure it's the high road?
So it's 2016, a close election in my state, and I vote Third Party. As a result, Republicans retain control of the legislature and the governorship. Unemployment benefits are kept short, people are hungry. Food stamp assistance is cut back, more people are hungry. Education is slashed yet again and a generation loses ground it will never make up. Thousands and thousands of poor rural voters can't vote because they don't have the transportation necessary to get voter ID's. Young ladies who need abortions can't generally get them because they'd need to be transported to a small city in the mountains where the only legal clinic in the state is. In Washington, a Republican gets into the White House and has the next two Supreme Court nominations. Both retiring justices are liberals, so the count on the next cause decided more on a political than a judicial basis (plus all cases involving campaign finance reform) is now 7-2, and it will take more than a generation to reverse this.
This is what my vote did. Some people here would say that I acted responsibly. I'm not so sure. I refused to vote for evil but, in doing so, I strengthened evil. The result of my action is that suffering Increased.
That doesn't look like a high road to me.
kosh – It’s the high road because those are the song’s lyrics. It was mean light-heartedly. I appreciate that the Dems’ not winning means more folks like Thomas/Alito etc on the Court. And their effects last decades.
libby – You’re harsher than I would be about The Dems and Obama but that’s not the issue I want to pursue. You’ve opted for the third way although you note that it might take several election cycles and that the mainstream media isn’t going to help the Green cause. But kosh has pointed out that another couple of Repub administrations would result in a 7-2 conservative majority for a quarter century or more. I see that as the worst possible outcome of electoral politics and therefore the outcome most to be avoided. So for the time being that means voting Dem. Of course there are geographical considerations. The Dems don’t look likely to lose NY anytime soon so your efforts to build the Greens can’t incidentally help the Repubs. Unless you get too successful.
There’s a couple of other aspects I’ll get into another time but I’m fighting a cold and aren’t up for more than a couple of minutes of concentration. So I’ll leave it to you to have the last word. interesting discussion, for the most part, you generated here.
libby – You’re harsher than I would be about The Dems and Obama but that’s not the issue I want to pursue. You’ve opted for the third way although you note that it might take several election cycles and that the mainstream media isn’t going to help the Green cause. But kosh has pointed out that another couple of Repub administrations would result in a 7-2 conservative majority for a quarter century or more. I see that as the worst possible outcome of electoral politics and therefore the outcome most to be avoided. So for the time being that means voting Dem. Of course there are geographical considerations. The Dems don’t look likely to lose NY anytime soon so your efforts to build the Greens can’t incidentally help the Repubs. Unless you get too successful.
There’s a couple of other aspects I’ll get into another time but I’m fighting a cold and aren’t up for more than a couple of minutes of concentration. So I’ll leave it to you to have the last word. interesting discussion, for the most part, you generated here.
Abra, I wish you a speedy recovery.
jan -- I always nod all the way thru your comments! :-) You write:
"The problem with hoping the Democratic politicians will transform into representatives of the general public is that the majority of previously Democratic voters have lost faith in the party and the system. Two thirds of voters have refused to vote. It's not like the problem of God where you can't prove he doesn't exist. The non-existence of public minded politicians is all out in the open and recognized. If anybody is loony it's those keepers of the faith when the party has lost theirs.The whole damned system is defunct."
"The problem with hoping the Democratic politicians will transform into representatives of the general public is that the majority of previously Democratic voters have lost faith in the party and the system. Two thirds of voters have refused to vote. It's not like the problem of God where you can't prove he doesn't exist. The non-existence of public minded politicians is all out in the open and recognized. If anybody is loony it's those keepers of the faith when the party has lost theirs.The whole damned system is defunct."
kosh,
I believed that the platform of Jill Stein would have drained the swamp in DC.
http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2012/06/22/the_tragedy_of_ignoring_green_partys_jill_stein
I was going to snip some of it but this thread is long enuf, right?
Obama is still around, still doing his razzle dazzle and can be romanticized, i.e., propagandized, from a myopic focus and corporate spin as being a Dem champion up against the Republican meanies now. Sigh. He still has two years to continue to shred our rights and perpetrate more wars, continue droning, continue Gitmo, etc.
best, libby
I believed that the platform of Jill Stein would have drained the swamp in DC.
http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2012/06/22/the_tragedy_of_ignoring_green_partys_jill_stein
I was going to snip some of it but this thread is long enuf, right?
Obama is still around, still doing his razzle dazzle and can be romanticized, i.e., propagandized, from a myopic focus and corporate spin as being a Dem champion up against the Republican meanies now. Sigh. He still has two years to continue to shred our rights and perpetrate more wars, continue droning, continue Gitmo, etc.
best, libby
How to minimize suffering? Kosh, that is an essential question.
De-corporatize America. Corporations have the legal personhood personalities of psychopaths. The government is infected with corporatism. We are becoming more and more controlled by a psychopathic agenda, in which human suffering is not a consideration!
The citizens have got to get madder than hell and show it!!! Show it so largely the corporate media can't sweep it under the cover-up carpet!!!
The citizens have got to get re-sensitized to morality -- to the Charlie Rose and Meet the Press gamesmanship rhetoric in which dying or maimed masses of people are not treated like inanimate chess pawns!!
We need journalists with integrity. We need pols with integrity. We need a citizenry that doesn't treat democracy like a spectator sport that gets this should be a government of, by and for the people!!!
We don't shut up about the corruption and the real facts. Obama's bullshit about immigration needs to be called out because the corporate press spins it all. The Republicans are awful re immigration and so is Obama but lesser evilism is still happening. Sigh.
I know this needs more time and thought. Thanks for encouraging that. Will keep on searching for responses.
best, libby
De-corporatize America. Corporations have the legal personhood personalities of psychopaths. The government is infected with corporatism. We are becoming more and more controlled by a psychopathic agenda, in which human suffering is not a consideration!
The citizens have got to get madder than hell and show it!!! Show it so largely the corporate media can't sweep it under the cover-up carpet!!!
The citizens have got to get re-sensitized to morality -- to the Charlie Rose and Meet the Press gamesmanship rhetoric in which dying or maimed masses of people are not treated like inanimate chess pawns!!
We need journalists with integrity. We need pols with integrity. We need a citizenry that doesn't treat democracy like a spectator sport that gets this should be a government of, by and for the people!!!
We don't shut up about the corruption and the real facts. Obama's bullshit about immigration needs to be called out because the corporate press spins it all. The Republicans are awful re immigration and so is Obama but lesser evilism is still happening. Sigh.
I know this needs more time and thought. Thanks for encouraging that. Will keep on searching for responses.
best, libby
PW -- SO WONDERFUL TO HAVE YOU AROUND AGAIN!!!
I am nodding as I read your comment. Absolutely!!
I am sure you will appreciate this quote, PW -- for when each of us goes up against a condescending group-think:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi
love, libby
I am nodding as I read your comment. Absolutely!!
I am sure you will appreciate this quote, PW -- for when each of us goes up against a condescending group-think:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi
love, libby
abra and kosh, ralph nader would have helped drain the swamp. jill stein would have helped drain the swamp. do you blame me for voting for the swamp drainers? why not blame the people ignorant of and disrespectful to the swamp drainers because they want to vote for a guaranteed "winner" and the corporate media advertised party and are willing to settle for so pathetically little. Jill Stein only got .5% of the vote. I don't blame Jill. I don't blame people like me. I blame people that went with the betraying Dem party. I hear your frustration, abra and kosh, but the Dem party has steadily gotten more craven because they have gotten away with it. and now there is some grandstanding to try to raise ratings, especially on the failing Dem party party in Congress and WH post 2014 election. They posture for caring about the people, like Obama's bullshit about immigrants and Congress caring about auto defects. Pose prettily for the camera and let's pretend we have a moral government. Let's hope there is a pendulum swinging back to morality. No, there is not one. There is populist rhetoric and there is genuine action. It is not happening.
So from the Republicans we get crumbs and from the Dems we get croutons???
That is not okay.
I know you want a better answer. Best I can do right now.
best, libby
So from the Republicans we get crumbs and from the Dems we get croutons???
That is not okay.
I know you want a better answer. Best I can do right now.
best, libby
(((((lyle)))))) -- There will at some point be a critical mass of citizens who want to live in the solution and not enable the problem! best, libby
LLL,
In my limited experience as a paranormal; I've figured out who signs your checks.
And will you have a persona on Jeoparby's yet today? Your's, the
resident Aussie's and the bros from Kansas use entirely too much
OX.Y.GEN!
Will you be at Macy's parade x week?
Jim (waiting for the Juan to click xto the zero)
In my limited experience as a paranormal; I've figured out who signs your checks.
And will you have a persona on Jeoparby's yet today? Your's, the
resident Aussie's and the bros from Kansas use entirely too much
OX.Y.GEN!
Will you be at Macy's parade x week?
Jim (waiting for the Juan to click xto the zero)
I don't know why the two factions here continue to talk at each other. Positions have not budged in the least. It's an exercise in futility and self-righteousness. And I include the indefatiguable Kosh, even though I agree with him right down the line (God almighty, doing anything that enables the Republicans to further entrench themselves would be disastrous).
What?
Payback is a W
itch?
The only commonality between Murrow,Rand, and Mao was that they were addicted to nicotine.
Ha. Nicotine spell checks above only Nicene.
JPH (quicker than they thought)
Remember that yellow bus in Good Morning Vietnam(:?!
Payback is a W
itch?
The only commonality between Murrow,Rand, and Mao was that they were addicted to nicotine.
Ha. Nicotine spell checks above only Nicene.
JPH (quicker than they thought)
Remember that yellow bus in Good Morning Vietnam(:?!
No comments:
Post a Comment