…and this is a 
In Defense of Mockery
by Iris Vander Pluym
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
-Thomas Jefferson
I read with profound weariness a piece in Salon by Michael Lind entitled Hey, liberals: Time to give the Beck bashing a rest. Lind is apparently under the impression that (a) Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews engage in “constant mockery” of bloviating right-wing demagogues such as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck, and that (b) this would somehow be a bad thing, because it is likely to backfire on “liberals.”
He could not be more wrong.
First, Lind’s charge of “constant mockery” is patently ridiculous. Rachel Maddow has committed some of the most astounding acts of journalism on a major cable network that a U.S. primetime audience could possibly hope to see. Maddow regularly does long, in-depth interviews over multiple segments for which she is extremely well-prepared, enough to swat away any bullshit a guest might dare to fling at her. Even Tweety has his moments. Lind’s implication that anyone on MSNBC fills all or even most of their airtime snickering over the jaw-droppingly stupid and inane bullshit that right-wing politicians and pundits say every day is simply absurd. I just cannot fathom how anyone — much less someone with a platform on Salon — could possibly be unaware that one can report on our devastated economy, or revolution in the Middle East, and also mock morons.
But putting this accusation of “constant mockery” aside, Lind’s larger point is that such snickering is counterproductive, and a waste of “precious center-left media time.” He goes into his reasons in some detail, but upon even cursory examination all of them fail to convince.
“It makes other far-right Republican conservatives look moderate.” I don’t believe this is true, and Lind provides no evidence of it. Say a wingnut makes a fool of him- or herself while pontificating on a particular issue. When the same issue comes up again in another context, isn’t one likely to associate it with the earlier foolishness? And wouldn’t this be especially true if, when it came up the last time, one had enjoyed a really good laugh at the exact same nonsense? But okay, I’ll grant for the sake of discussion that by laughing at egregious examples of wingnut stupidity, we somehow make others who hold exactly those views seem more reasonable by comparison.
Lind points out, correctly, that run-of-the-mill, right-wing politicians routinely spout ideas that are equally as batshit insane as anything Glenn Beck has ever spewed. But, his argument goes, because they project more “statesmanlike gravitas” than those ignorant loonies over whom we all snigger, they receive more respectful treatment and thus appear more moderate by contrast. This is — excuse me — a huge load of crap. Even if it it is true that the more “statesmanlike” wingnuts enjoy more respect than their uncouth counterparts, and as a result their equally crazy positions are mainstreamed and legitimized, it simply does not follow that the solution is to stop mocking the Christine O’Donnells of the world. If anything, what we need is far more mockery, relentlessly and consistently deployed in the general direction of anyone who says that the separation of church and state is unconstitutional, or that global warming is a hoax, or that the Earth is 10,000 years old, or that eliminating Social Security is a grand idea. We should always attack stupid ideas, regardless of how nice a suit the proponent is wearing at a press conference.
Mock. Point. Laugh. State facts. Satirize. Call a lie, a lie. Mock again. Laugh again. Point to facts again. Repeat. Repeat again. Repeat yet again, until everyone thinks twice before ever uttering anything so destructive, ignorant and idiotic in public.
How more people skewering right-wing falsehoods would not lead to a better world escapes me.
“It makes liberals look like snobs.” Lind explains that whenever liberal pundits bash right-wing stupidity, it only confirms in the minds of wingnuts — who already hate all those smarty-pants in-tee-lekshuls — that liberals are looking down on them.
Since the ’60s, conservatives have managed to recruit populist voters by claiming that the intellectual elites look down their noses at them. By theatrically sneering at less-educated politicians and media loudmouths, progressive pundits seem to prove that the left consists only of snobbish members of the college-educated professional class making fun of the errors of people who did not attend prestigious schools.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see a problem here. Right-wing conservatives live in an insular world where there exists nothing but confirmation that liberals are elitist snobs. To even attempt to convince them otherwise would be a complete waste of time. Perhaps Michael Lind is under the mistaken impression that an extreme right-wing mind can ever be changed in the slightest? Or that such people are actually the intended targets of the mockers pointing out their “errors”? Because this is not the case at all.
Directly calling out the sheer ignorance and bone-headed stupidity of politicians and pundits is critically necessary to a functioning democracy. But the reason this is so isn’t because ignorant, arrogant boneheads and their followers will suddenly become informed and enlightened, renounce their erroneous and backward views, and sincerely apologize to the American people for all of the pointless suffering they have caused throughout their careers. (As if.) Calling out sheer ignorance and bone-headed stupidity is vitally important so that everyone else knows that there are other people who think these are really stupid and terrible ideas. Because maybe, upon hearing of this, many people might consider the possibility that these are, in fact, really stupid and terrible ideas — instead of thinking wow, it sure is true that the left consists only of snobbish members of the college-educated professional class who attended prestigious schools.
“It’s a reactive strategy that gives the initiative to the right.” I’ll admit this point has a good deal of superficial appeal. Whenever your enemy defines the playing field, you are certainly at a disadvantage. But Lind himself reveals the fatal defect in his assertion:
When progressive opinion leaders wait for conservatives to say something stupid and then pounce on it, they cede the choice of topics in national debate to their enemies.
Progressive opinion leaders are not sitting around in silence, waiting for conservatives to say something stupid just so they can react to it. (Of course they will never have to wait very long if they are.) They cover many, many other topics of interest every day. What Lind suggests with this line of reasoning is that there exists an either/or binary, wherein it is not possible to set the topics of debate and mock truly bad ideas. In fact, sometimes both of these things intersect, and can be employed simultaneously to great effect, as when a conservative says something incredibly stupid and/or demonstrably untrue about a topic high on the liberal agenda. Letting such a golden opportunity slip by would be nothing short of political malpractice.
“It’s a waste of effort and attention.” Not to be trite, but you know what? Citation needed. Lind says:
We are mired down in two wars in the Muslim world and suffering from the greatest global economic crisis since the Great Depression.
At the risk of stating the obvious, those disastrous wars and the U.S.-instigated global economic meltdown are due in very large part to the stupid and terrible ideas of right-wing conservatives blaring from every major media outlet, from CBS News to the Wall Street Journal, for years, effectively suffocating and drowning out all adversarial points of view. Mockery may not have averted these epic disasters, but a little more of it could certainly have helped mitigate their disastrous effects by raising the profile of the opposition. Whenever George Bush said something breathtakingly stupid and John Stewart or The Colbert Report ripped it to shreds, they did this nation an enormous favor. It really shouldn’t have to be pointed out that anything that galvanized people against the stupidity and astonishing incompetence of the Bush-Cheney wingnut circus was a good thing (even if Obama didn’t ultimately deliver).
Even if Lind were right about any of these things, there is a far greater danger in ignoring or dismissing the deranged rantings of prominent right-wing conservatives. We do so at our grave peril. Left alone to fester and spread with nothing to forcefully counter them, the destructive dogmas of the fringe right-wing ooze into mainstream political discourse, and calcify there. That is what legitimizes those ideas, and makes them seem moderate. With a mass media more concerned with appearing “fair and balanced” than debunking pernicious falsehoods, we need more, not fewer people willing to pick up the torch and chase bad ideas back into the shadows, where they belong.
Lind does makes an excellent point about many Americans, in the absence of alternatives, being drawn to “village explainers” like Ross Perot with his charts and Glenn Beck with his blackboard diagrams, which liberals mocked. (Although I would suggest it is not the charts or blackboards being mocked per se, but the bizarre ideas expressed on them.) “The center-left needs its own village explainers,” he says, “with their own charts and their own blackboards.” While I agree that we could certainly use a lot more of them, there are plenty of high-profile liberals like Paul Krugman who have made careers out of explaining difficult concepts like Keynesian economics in terms that even I can understand. And at any rate this is a red herring, because no one is claiming we don’t need more “village explainers.” What I am claiming is that satire, mockery, and ridicule must also be part of the liberal arsenal.
I mentioned the absurdity of Lind’s “constant mockery” accusation,
but I want to make one more point in this regard. It’s rather
well-known fact that the right has a goddamn pantheon of full-time
Mockers of Liberals. Limbaugh and Coulter, for instance, are but two
who have made spectacularly lucrative careers out of this, and this is
possible precisely because it works. To pretend that
liberals are or should be above this tactic is not only dangerous, it
renders our opponents wielding an effective weapon, one that we refuse
to deploy against them, even in self-defense. Doing so also forfeits a
powerful strategic advantage. Modern conservatism (if that is not an
oxymoron) is defined by nothing so much as “anti-liberal.” Not anti-liberalism, either. As our good friends the taxpayer-funded-scooter-riding teabaggers can attest, right-wing conservatives very much want to keep the government’s hands off
their Medicare. And we all know that when in power, right-wing
conservatives abandon nearly every single one of those values we are
told are so sacrosanct, like fiscal restraint, reverence for the Constitution, States Rights, opposition to divorce, an aversion to so-called judicial activism,
etc. Their behavior belies any belief in their so-called principles.
No, right-wing conservatives are united by one thing, far more than
anything else: they are anti-liberal, in the sense that “latte-sipping,” “Prius-driving,” and even “vegetable-eating”
(?!) are epithets meant to express visceral disgust and contempt at
those depraved, treasonous liberals who are illegitimately running
their country. (Yes, I know. I wish.) Childishly taunting
those dirty hippy feminazi queer-loving manginas is a powerful tribal
reinforcement for Real Americans (who, I gather, all drink shitty
coffee, drive gas-sucking SUVs, and subsist entirely on whatever the hell it is that Taco Bell is passing off as “meat”).
It is unwise in the extreme to forego any opportunity to likewise
reinforce in those with genuine liberal instincts a similar
“anti-conservative” sentiment.
After all, what is the worst that could happen by whipping up snickering leftism to a fever pitch in the U.S. population? Single-payer universal healthcare? Defense spending halved? Lower teen pregnancy rates? Stable Social Security? Legalized pot? Higher tax rates for the obscenely rich? Clean energy?
The horror.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Gawdzilla
|
February 19, 2011 6:55 AM
Well, if this is the kind of "guest" posts we're going to be getting, I think I just fell in lust with this place.
Posted by: Stonyground
|
February 19, 2011 6:57 AM
I didn't have a university education, I have tried to educate myself about a broad range of subjects since I left school at seventeen. Firstly through books and quality TV and more recently via the internet. These means are available to everyone not just some intellectual elite In a country where you have a right to vote you have a duty to educate yourself to a certain basic level.
Throughout that article =96 kept popping up seemingly at random. Is this an error or does it signify something?
Posted by: Neapolitan
|
February 19, 2011 7:02 AM
Bravo! An incredible--and incredibly brave--piece of writing. More, please!
Posted by: gravematter
|
February 19, 2011 7:08 AM
Lovely. It's never been more necessary to point out the ridiculousness of these maniacs - the ludicrous opinions of Glenn Beck etc need to be shown for what they are. The liberal intelligentsia can't just sit back and take it for granted that everyone else will notice the foaming madness of the teabaggers without it being highlighted.
Posted by: cousinavi
|
February 19, 2011 7:10 AM
PZ for Pres!
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
February 19, 2011 7:15 AM
The only thing that may save the US is an invasion.
A virtual invasion by those of us in the rest of the world that despise and loath the criminal practices of the Republican party; every political thread, blog and website should be flooded with ridicule and mockery of the positions of the right, it's not like it's hard to find stuff to point and laugh at.
The US is the most powerful nation state the world has ever seen and Republicans are preventing that immense power from being used sanely and productively, at a time when multiple serious - possibly civilisation ending - issues visibly confront us simultaneously. It really makes me want to scream. Just a minute ...
Better.
I'm a global governance activist and I see two major problems preventing the negotiated democratisation and federalisation of the world; China and the scumsucking Republican party.
Hey, maybe Josh Whedon had it right in Firefly; if he did, we're all browncoats now!
TWIGG
Posted by: Robin J
|
February 19, 2011 7:22 AM
More of this sort of thing. For a sufficiently stupid argument, the counterargument is indistinguishable from mockery anyway.
Posted by: Petzl
|
February 19, 2011 7:28 AM
Reading the Salon article, I can't fathom the twisted logic whereby Lind reasons that Bachmann et al are correct in saying that the three-fifths compromise demonstrates the Founders disapproval of slavery. Somehow, because the South was deprived of those two-fifth's of a slave's worth in congressional apportionment, that's a victory against slavery? That compromise has always struck me as most crass and cynical of any modern document: the South denies their very personhood, yet nevertheless demands power over their franchise. It's stunning and disgusting and by no means was, as Lind claims, a "defeat for the slave owners of the South."
Michael Lind 0, Matthews 1.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
February 19, 2011 7:32 AM
There is at least some merit to the view that MSNBC devotes way too much time to reporting about what Fox News is saying. That point was driven home for me a few weeks ago when I was sitting in a local restaurant with two television screens in view. One was tuned to MSNBC and the other to Fox News, and both were showing me Glenn Beck.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
February 19, 2011 7:35 AM
Nice article, and since I didn't take the opportunity before to say so, thanks to PZ for hosting guest articles, especially if they're going to be this great.
Depending on the particular wingnut being mocked, relatively moderate could still be completely fucking batshit insane. Our fellow citizens who also happen to be dumb as bricks or batshit insane may not pick up on the finer subtleties of logic such as this, but they are a lost cause.
Well, it probably does, because many of us are. I'm owning it, and props to Iris Vander Pluym for doing the same. It's a non-issue. Besides, wasn't simply reacting to conservative talking points one of Lind's problems? ....Well, look what we have here:
That would be a bad idea. It's a good thing that isn't our only strategy, or we'd be screwed. Well, he may have a point there. Then again, so is any piece of comedy, as well as music, cats, nearly everything on TV, masturbating, and being an ostensibly liberal writer who criticizes other liberals for criticizing conservatives.Posted by: MyRealNameIsBobSmith
|
February 19, 2011 7:36 AM
There are so many great points in this writeup that it's hard to pick one to single out for applause, so instead just let me say: Incredibly Awesome Post.
Posted by: william.scherk
|
February 19, 2011 7:45 AM
Brilliant work, PZ. For six years I have been engaging with conservatives (of the Randian/Objectivish persuasion). I have engaged with this cohort first in an attempt to understand the episteme -- how they get to their conclusions, where their premises come from, how they check their own assumptions, and thence to counter the false thinking, demagoguery and ridiculous notions I identified.
From a curious/appalled observer I became and remain a minor spectre -- using Reason to disassemble unreason, using Logic to disassemble illogic . . . and using Mockery and Ridicule as part of my toolkit.
Sometimes mockery and ridicule are the best, sharpest tools, sometimes not. The cherry-picking Salon dimwit deserves mockery -- as well as normal critical disassembly. Thank you, PZ, for using the sharpest tools in your kit to strike down his uninformed and pernicious misreading (my fave: cite needed!).
Full disclosure: I am presently in an excruciating disassembly process with a notable online Objectivist who uses Glenn Beck programmes to suggest 'shadowy forces' drive all the revolts in the present Arab world. In the latest installment, I use small measures of mockery and large measures of research to grind away at . . . are you ready . . . the tired, insanely long-lived metastatic trope that George Soros helped send Jews to the Gas Chambers!! I had hoped that my interventions -- mocking and serious, sharply sarcastic and tediously deconstructive -- would help counter the hysterical rhetoric shooting from the Yellowstone geyserhole of Beck. If Mr Michael Lind thinks I am wasting my time and wasting the precious Leftist Lifeblood, he can get on my knob. If he thinks I cannot mock Beck while disassembling Beck, he is, how you say . . . wrong with a capital W.
Thank you thank you thank you.
Sorry to run on at length. I usually only post only once for every million Pharyngula comments I read. I will report back again in six months. I am now flying back in to Crazypants world at full Mock Two.
Posted by: TheRatKing
|
February 19, 2011 7:48 AM
I think I'm in love...
Posted by: william.scherk
|
February 19, 2011 7:51 AM
Um, Brilliant work, Iris Vander Pluym (he said, self-mockingly)
Posted by: Michel
|
February 19, 2011 8:07 AM
I thought, hmmm, PZ is being unusually soft on this guy he's criticizing, that's a nice change! (Not that I don't like the rants, they are such a comic relief) And I realized: OH! That's a guest writer! Very, very nice blog article Iris!
Posted by: Pete Moulton
|
February 19, 2011 8:08 AM
Bravo!!! Can't set the bar for guest posting much higher than this.
Posted by: Susan
|
February 19, 2011 8:09 AM
Excellent first Guest post! I can see why it didn't take long for you to decide to use it, PZ.
This is a very detailed and convincing take-down of Lind's position, Iris Vander Pluym. I especially loved:
That calls attention to the deficiency in his argument and mocks him at the same time-- i.e. illustrates your point perfectly!Posted by: blf
|
February 19, 2011 8:16 AM
Probably, but that's the symptom. The proximate- (if not root-)cause is it's a circle-jerk. Once a particular meme takes hold, that meme goes round and round (presumably being simplified (not necessarily distilled / analysed) and/or corrupted in the process). The more extreme the wingnut, the more likely all it listens to are other wingnuts. (This circling-jerking phenomenon is not restricted to wingnuts, extreme or otherwise.)
One of those circulating wingnut memes seems to be this elitist nonsense.
Other memes (in addition to those mentioned or alluded in this guest article) appear to be AGW isn't happening and/or is a conspiracy, the USA had xian founders and is a xian homeland, environmentalism is inherently costly and bad and un-necessary and/or a conspiracy, Israel can do no wrong†, universal health care requires “death panels”, Peak Oil is a myth and/or conspiracy, etc., etc., etc.
† This seems to be a tricky one for some since anti-semitism seems to be another extreme wingnut meme (albeit rarely baldly stated (e.g., the USA is a xian nation…)). Of course, anti-semitism and criticising Israeli policies and actions/inactions are not the same thing, but that distinction isn't always drawn, leading to some confusion in the circulating simplified memes.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 8:18 AM
What an interesting world we live in when simply defending the idea of physical reality makes one an elitist.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 8:28 AM
Haven't had coffee yet - am I dreaming this?
And are we absolutely sure there are no gods? I'm building a shrine to PZ anyway, for posting my piece and for inspiring me in so many ways.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 19, 2011 8:30 AM
Political accommodationists are as wrong as religious (or atheist) accommodationists.
Posted by: Rumson
|
February 19, 2011 8:46 AM
Fellow Liberal here. No college, just tech school. I work retail and part time as a mechanic. This "Liberals are academic snobs" crap drives me nuts. This whole idea that somehow the red states are the backbone of America, and the blue states are packed with Ivy League socialists is so stupid, it is almost impossible to think anyone could really believe it. They do realize that there are plumbers, carpenters, welders, janitors, etc, in every state, right? Many of them vote Democrat, too. Is this all that hard to understand? Will they ever be able to turn away from the twenty four hour right wing propaganda industry long enough to actually let their own brains think for a minute? Is that really too much to ask?
Posted by: russell.glasser
|
February 19, 2011 9:01 AM
Good post, PZ, and it is very similar to one I made a few years ago.
http://kazimskorner.blogspot.com/2005/12/mockery.html
Of all the common fallacies being passed around today, I think I hate "false moral equivalence" the most.
Posted by: DoubtingT
|
February 19, 2011 9:15 AM
Resent ridicule?
Repudiate the ridiculous.
(/bumper-sticker)
Posted by: rocketgirl
|
February 19, 2011 9:22 AM
Great guest post! More please.
Posted by: StevePr
|
February 19, 2011 9:35 AM
Great post.
Given the right wing have near total control of media outlets that feed the right wing machine being nice to them or engaging in reason is never going to work. They have propaganda down pat . They parrot 1/4, or less, truths as gospel in simple repeatable chunks that feed the fears and hatreds of the great unwashed.
Countering lies with sweet reason will only ever convince those you've already convinced. The non conservative forces need to counter propaganda with propaganda. Given the lack of access to a propaganda channel that's going to be near impossible.
I'm slightly torn in that attacking the unwashed's messiah , be it beck in the US or some of our right wing demagogues in Australia, prompts the converts to rise up in hate of the attacker so it can be counter-productive but really the opposition to the "eating of the future" need to get across their opposition in a way the masses can accept using simple direct counters.
I don't see that happening until the liberal viewpoint isn't a voice heard occasionally but is being fed down the same channels the right wing drivel is.
However ridicule is always an option close to my heart :)
Posted by: Kevin
|
February 19, 2011 9:40 AM
Iris: You are awesome! Truly righteous rant.
PZ: Thanks for doing this. I think I was right when I said this could be the beginning of something really, really special.
A "no woo" zone.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
February 19, 2011 9:47 AM
I kept copying bits of text to comment upon, only to find a few sentences later that Pluym had covered what I was going to say. I guess it's an echo chamber! But seriously, well done.
I wasn't sure how to approach Lind's article. His thesis is basically a restatement of the Overton Window. But Limbaugh and Beck and the like aren't mocked because they're fringe extremists, they're mocked because they are the driving force behind actual GOP policy. Meanwhile, the Right is still obsessing over William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as though they're relevant to anything. And just try mentioning George Soros at Free Republic and see what happens.
I find it telling that Lind neglected to actually cite some of this constant mockery he dislikes. It's not like I see blog posts just calling Bill O'Reilly an idiot; I see blog posts calling Bill O'Reilly and idiot, and then documenting why he's an idiot. Hell, even The Daily Show and Wonkette document their ridicule. I'm certainly not one to insult someone just for being wrong, but the Michelle Malkins of the world aren't merely wrong, they are professionally mendacious, and most of their audience doesn't know that. If calling out shameless, habitual liars is mockery, then that's mockery we need more of!
Posted by: frankenstein monster
|
February 19, 2011 9:51 AM
Ridicule is the only non-lethal weapon that works against people who lack the capacity to understand the refutation of their delusion.
If you are trying prevent delusional madmen from swaying the ignorant and stupid, things like arguments, explanation, reasoning simply don't work. Its like fighting zombies who does not die because they are too stupid to realize that a fist sized hole in the chest should have killed them. Normal arguments won't against someone too stupid to understand them. But humans evolved as social creatures, and almost anyone can understand instinctively that he is being mocked, even if the content of the mockery is unintelligible to him...
Posted by: simondavis79
|
February 19, 2011 9:56 AM
I agree in general, however my problem with the folks you cite (Maddow, Matthews, etc) is that they fail to even give voice to single-payer advocates or peaceniks. They generally amplify the center left Democratic talking points.
Furthermore cable news outlets hardly even do news anymore. All they do is pick 5 topics for a given day and have a fixed set of Dem/Rep talking heads give minor variations of the daily talking points. And don't get me started on the horrible propaganda ads they inundate viewers with.
Posted by: reedb42
|
February 19, 2011 10:00 AM
I'm glad somebody finally said it. I'm not going around calling people I disagree with idiots just because I'm a spiteful bastard. I wouldn't bother with that, what a monumental waste of time it would be! There's not even any challenge in it.
I think humanity went wrong when it decided that offense is a proper response to opposing viewpoints. Next time you have that knee-jerk reaction of offense from reading or hearing something you don't agree with, why not instead put the effort you would have wasted being offended by it into understanding the meaning behind it?
Words are not cudgels in the hands of intellectual barbarians, they come with meaning and everything! Speaking for myself, I put a lot of thought into choosing my words carefully, especially in heated debate and regardless of how offensive they may be. For my words to be ignored out of hand simply because I'm not bending over backward to make sure the other guy isn't offended is nothing short of an insult to me.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:03 AM
Naked Bunny with a Whip #28
Often the same folks who complain about Wright claim that Obama is a Muslim. No, they don't see any contradiction in the two whines.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
February 19, 2011 10:10 AM
Not this Overton Window, right? The other one?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:11 AM
Great first guest piece. Take a bow Iris Vander Pluym. You set a high bar.
Now to go and ridicule a local politician.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 19, 2011 10:14 AM
Perhaps a wee bit of mockery is in order here.
Whatever one might say about the Bush-Cheney administration it cannot be said that they were stupid or incompetent. They had a very specific agenda and they executed it with ruthless efficiency. It is profoundly naive to assume that they were pursuing anything other than their self interests and that they considered the damage wrought upon society at large anything other than necessary collateral damage. They were masters of mass manipulation via state of the art tools of propaganda and the wingnut circus clowns such as Beck and Limbaugh directed by Murdoch the Ringmaster very aptly did their bidding. Step right up ladies and gentlemen for the greatest show on earth!
As for Obama, he is a mere puppet of many of those very same interests and he too just dances along according to how the strings are being pulled. To make matters worse, he is unfortunately, scientifically illiterate, what would you expect from a graduate of law school, and our Secretary of Energy Dr. Chu has either been explicitly ordered to STFU and toe the party line and is just going along for the ride and guaranteeing his own life boat or perhaps is just another coward too scared to speak the truths that need to be spoken both to TPTB and the public at large.
Anyone who really expected Obama to deliver was just deluding him or herself. (I admit, I myself had the briefest moment of hope that real change was possible) I was fractally wrong!
We are not up against stupidity, ignorance or incompetence. We are up against a well orchestrated plan to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a small elite group. That the vast majority of our citizens are stupid, ignorant and incompetent is probably not entirely by accident. This plan has been steadfastly executed and it continues to be implemented.
Perhaps the show and free bread supplied by the puppet masters will continue for a while longer but I wouldn't be too surprised if the stakes holding up the big tent suddenly get yanked and the whole shebang comes tumbling down around our heads. You can laugh all you want then!
Posted by: Miss. Ann Thrope, Death's PR consultant
|
February 19, 2011 10:24 AM
It's damn near impossible not to mock conservatives, It's a good way to keep sane AND it's just WAY too easy.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
February 19, 2011 10:27 AM
Fred the Hun:
Sure it can: they were stupid and incompetent. It's not so hard. Try it out for yourself.
Now, compare and contrast:
Do you consider yourself primarily an idiot or a bigot? Have fun polishing your tin-foil hat!Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:28 AM
I've seen a whole lot of griping about politicians and journalists not giving voice to those on the right. It is almost as if people expected politicians and journalists to lead. They don't--especially not in a democracy. And on those rare occasions where they do show leadership, the voters and readers usually punish them for it.
LBJ and JFK were dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights era. Politicians only began speaking out against Viet Nam when they'd exhausted all other options and they could no longer ignore the public's opposition.
It simply is not reasonable to expect politicians to give voice to progressive ideas when the progressives stay home on election day because they're depressed they aren't heard.
Obama deserves some credit for tackling health care and persevering to get at least something out of the sausage mill. This was arguably the first piece of moderately progressive legislation to be passed in the US since the 70s. Bill Clinton not only gave up on it, he hung his own wife out to dry in doing so. Obama persevered and got a flawed bill, that was nonetheless an improvement on the status quo ante. He deserves some credit for that. Instead he got only criticism and apathy from the left.
The Overton window has shifted so far to the right, you need a frigging radio telescope even to see our issues at present. If we want to shift political momentum toward the left, we must first stop the shift to the right, and we will not do that by abandoning the centrists.
It will not work to wait for the Republicans to make things so bad that they implode. There won't be much to salvage then. Instead, we have to stop the rot, give sufficient cover to the politicians that pass for allies and wait for sanity to return.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:46 AM
Fred the Hun,
While I think you are correct that we need to understand the influences that shape Obama's policy, I think you need to realize that these influences have managed to impose an astonishing consistency on US politics for over 20 years now. Clinton was forced to tack to the right. Bush was forced to modulate some of his stupider ideas--even embracing the idea of anthropogenic climate change at one point. To expect the first black president to be sufficiently radically to buck these forces is folly.
At the same time, there is a big difference between Bush/Cheney--who rejected the very concept of reality--and Obama, who embraces it however tepidly. Bush/Cheney were so ideologically blinkered that they were forced to deny both physical and political realities. That is the very definition of willful stupidity.
Obama is an astute politician who knows how to count to 60 votes in the Senate and 270 in the electoral college. However, he is at least has a nodding acquaintance with reality.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 10:50 AM
a_ray:
I hate to do this to you a_ray, but: citation needed. The "centrists" are on the right.
How's that waiting for sanity to return workin' out for ya?
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
February 19, 2011 10:55 AM
Welcome, Iris! Splendid post!
To mockery: What exactly is the alternative*? Sober, PBS-style roundtable discussions? Smooth NPR voices? Yeah, that will galvanize people. Isn't this another thing that the Left is criticized for? Being boring?
Jon Stewart is one of the best allies that progressives could possibly have (although he's perhaps a bit cagey about his actual politics). And if you watch the Daily Show, they dish on actual politicians plenty. Bless those Daily Show writers for being able to watch C-SPAN.
* Note that the use of the word "alternative" here implies the sort of false dichotomy that is pushed by the Nice Brigade. Obviously we can pursue multiple tactics. We have the personnel.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
February 19, 2011 10:56 AM
As a thorough evisceration of an accommodationist boob like Lind, this pieces should fill me with the kind of sadistic glee that only eye-thumbing mockery can provide. But where's the mockery? Don't hold it in Iris*! His thesis is ridiculous and deserves ridicule. Rip Mr. Lind a new poop shute, and in with the porcupine.
Nicer: This is a well-written and well-reasoned piece even if it lacks the tone I have come to expect. If you aren't a professional writer, I'm surprised.
*I love that name.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 10:57 AM
simondavis79 @ 30:
I agree with you. Lind cited Maddow and Matthews in his first paragraph; that is why I addressed them specifically.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 19, 2011 11:05 AM
consciousness razor@37
Whether or not I'm an idiot, is certainly open to debate, but no, I'm not a bigot! Thanks for asking though.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
February 19, 2011 11:18 AM
You're welcome. I'll settle for idiot. Since I'm feeling charitable at the moment, would you prefer unfair? Do you notice a few things in your comment that are ever so slightly inaccurate?
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 11:22 AM
Fred The Hun - I respectfully disagree. Oh, sorry, I forgot where I was for a second! Okay, I disrespectfully disagree.
Unless you're a "Truther," the 9/11 attacks themselves stand as a monument to Bush/Cheney incompetence and stupidity. The Iraq invasion was really, really stupid, and calling its execution incompetent would be an egregious insult to incompetents everywhere.
Putting that aside, I do not believe there is a master plan executed with ruthless efficiency by geniuses. Yes, wealthy private interests have captured the U.S. government, but I believe this is an emergent property of authoritarian conservatism, rather than a grand scheme orchestrated by an elite cabal.
While there is obviously synergy between various powerful interests, at the end of the day right-wing elites are depraved, short-sighted and avaricious: they are only looking out for themselves and their benefactors. If my hypothesis is correct, the way to diminish their power is to find the places where the interests of powerful factions conflict, and exploit them.
Posted by: Joel Grant
|
February 19, 2011 11:26 AM
I used to read Salon every day but I missed this article by Lind. I missed it because I now go directly to Greenwald's Salon blog and skip the Linds and the cutesie stories about people's unhappy childhood/marriage/college experience/trip to the supermarket - whatever.
It seems I have not missed much.
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 19, 2011 11:26 AM
This "snobbery" nonsense needs to be refuted every time it appears. Snobbery is the use of unreasonable distinctions between people: if you look down on me because my parents were poor, or because I sometimes drop my aitches, you're a snob. But if you merely insist that someone should be competent to do their job, and call attention to the occasions when they fall short, that's not snobbery, it's called having reasonable standards. And we all do it. Who would go to a dentist who wasn't qualified?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
February 19, 2011 11:27 AM
That's more like it.Can I get an AMEN?
Sharp. I'm going to spend more time reading your blog.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 11:31 AM
Thank you to everyone for the nice shout-outs. I cannot tell you how honored I feel today. Pharyngula is by far my most favoritest blog, like, EVAH, and it's not just because PZ is so freaking amazing. The commenters here are brilliant, tenacious, and wildly entertaining.
I am seriously giddy.
*blushing*
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:38 AM
Iris, there are no leftist politicians. They are currently extinct. So either we try to hold the center against the anti-reality thugs on the right, or we abandon ship, move to Sweden and wait for the US to implode...with nuclear weapons. If we choose to stay, we have to give cover to the left flank of American politics--even though it ain't on the left.
I've given up on making things perfect. I'm now
1)trying to keep things from getting worse
2)trying to make things incrementally better as opportunity arises.
Oh, and how is allying yourself with all the leftists in offic working out for you... Oh, wait. There aren't any. Never mind.
Posted by: stuartvo
|
February 19, 2011 11:53 AM
Isn't the Lind article just a textbook example of "concern trolling"? Advising one side to engage in behaviour that would actually benefit their opposition?
It's an accusation I've often heard levelled at the Democratic Party - That they heed the advice of idiot "consultants" that give them crappy advice (such as urging them to move ever more rightward) making idiots of themselves and losing votes in the process.
And sorry if this is off-topic, but what the hell is the problem with the Dems? Why do they suck so at actually winning elections and holding on to their gains? Is it just rampant incompetence? But surely they have too many intelligent, articulate people in their ranks to be so blind to political reality?
I know they're often accused of working for the same interests that dominate the Republicans, and that they don't really want any change, as this would alienate their corporate masters. But don't they want to win elections? Can't they at least pretend to oppose the right-wing more effectively, if only to win more seats in the government and get a few more members drawing Congressional salaries?
Maybe it's 'cos I'm not an American, but I just don't get it.
Posted by: fundip
|
February 19, 2011 12:15 PM
its best just to accuse the neo-conservative/fundamental religionists of being closet homosexuals and move on with your life. also make sure to mention the evidence of jesus and his 12 apostles engaging in sodomy on the sabbath.
Posted by: abb3w
|
February 19, 2011 12:18 PM
A possible reason to moderate the degree that outright mockery is used: eventually, it looses its surprise value. No surprise, no cognitive dissonance, no switch to reflective cognition from reflexive cognition, reduced prospect of changing minds.
I would conjecture that the effect of mockery is a function of the degree of prestige that the listener has ascribed to the source (and thus, cognitive dissonance between their favorable view of the object of the mockery and their prestige-based trust of the mocker, and thus the mocker's disfavorable view of the object of the mockery). This in turn suggests why caution is in order, in that there are two ways that this dissonance may be reduced/resolved. On the one hand, it may result in the intended decrease in acceptance of the object of the mockery and/or increase in the respect for the mocker; on the other hand, it may result in an unintended decrease in prestige ascribed to the mocker and an increased reverence of the object of the mockery.
Note, this is at most an argument as to how often individuals should use mockery, and perhaps as to with what types of audience. At this point, there are too many people who have bought in to the "lie-beral media" myth for it to have any beneficial effect on the conservative base. There are many who I frankly consider to be frighteningly out of touch with the evidence of history. I do not see any morally palatable solution to the problem of people who are no longer getting postcards from reality.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 19, 2011 12:18 PM
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, @39
I 'll grant you that Bush-Cheney did indeed deny physical realities, especially if we assume that their goal was to lead the US towards any kind of sustainable future. Frankly, I'm not convinced that that was ever their goal. I think they quite accurately assessed the situation decided that was simply not in the cards and concluded that their own lifestyles and access to power were not negotiable. The fact that the costs of pursuing those interests happened to include destroying the lives and futures of the citizens of this country and others around the world, was perfectly fine with them.
Their calculus was indeed been based on faulty data, poorly constructed modes plus a refusal to examine thoroughly the long term unintended consequences of their actions and how they might backfire and consequently plant the seeds of their own demise. But given their original premise, they very competently pursued and executed their plan. Unfortunately their Titanic hit the iceberg of reality and is now sinking while taking all of us with it. Still it is they and their cronies who are manning all the lifeboats. I think Roy Zimmerman puts his finger on it with his song "End of the Ship"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNi1sevKNd0
I will very reluctantly also allow Obama a bit of the benefit of the doubt, while crossing my fingers, and hoping that he is cognizant of reality and also a master political chess player, who at the end of the day, truly, has the welfare and best interests of the American people at heart. Trouble is, that even if that were true, he is captaining a sinking vessel with not enough lifeboats for all involved.
As I mentioned above, the people in controll of the life boats are still in a position to dictate who it is that gets into them. It is that control, which is emblematic of the sheer genius, mad though it may be, of the puppeteers such as the infamous Koch brothers and other owners of the corporatocracy that today are our true lords and masters. At the end of the day they are the ones calling the shots. I seriously doubt that Obama has the power,the wherewithal or the inclination to counter them. I fear that like most pragmatic politicians before him he will continue to try to compromise and bargain with the devil of reality. I just haven't quite figured out, where it is that he might be hiding his chips.
On second thought, perhaps the chess analogy wasn't quite the right one, let's hope that up to now Obama has been hedging his bets and getting ready to play his hand. Hopefully he still has a couple of aces up sleeve just in case the call his bluff. My bet, though, is that he will fold...
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 12:31 PM
a_ray: I hear you. And I wholeheartedly agree with your point #2. We can and should try to make things incrementally better as opportunity arises.
And I agree with your point #1 in principle: we can and should try to keep things from getting worse. But I strongly disagree that giving cover to the so-called left flank of American politics will have that effect - quite the opposite, in fact. The rightward drift of the Democratic party is due in very large part to the fact that there are no negative consequences for Democratic politicians who vote for conservative policies. They take for granted that people on the left will vote for them, because they can. The thinking goes: Hey, my representatives may vote with Republicans a lot, but at least they're not as crazy as their teabagging brethren, so they get my vote.
Until there is a meaningful price to pay for their actions, Democratic politicians will continue to drift rightward. They can count on people like you for cover no matter what they do. Meanwhile the revolving door to lucrative lobbying and industry positions is calling. There are only carrots, no sticks.
Yes, a Democrat losing an election may hurt us in the short run, but if there is no price to be paid for political conservatism, we will only see more of it. Running a progressive candidate in a democratic primary - even a candidate that ultimately loses - has an impact as well. Look at the hoops the DSCC had to jump through to stave off a credible primary threat from the left to the odious Blanche Lincoln; as a result of that battle, Ms. Lincoln moved, ever so slightly, to the left.
The radical right has done the same thing to the Republicans, dragging the party even further rightward. They didn't argue, "Even though he's too liberal on the issues I care about, at least this Republican is better than that awful Democrat." No, they made sure there was a heavy price to pay, in votes and financial support, for not towing the line on their issues. It works.
That is how we can move the needle. Not by providing cover where none is deserved.
If Democratic politicians pay with a few seats, things may indeed get worse before they get better. But we've been going down the road you suggest for a very long time now, and things are not getting better: in most of the ways that really matter, they are in fact getting worse.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 19, 2011 12:44 PM
@a_ray
The problem with this approach is that much of the shift to the right is actually abetted by the centrists-in no small part because they take an approach parallel to Lind's regarding mockery. Their idea (which the Democrats have followed for decades now, with little but failure as an outcome) has been to 'be reasonable' and then throw being reasonable overboard to people who aren't reasonable at all in the right-leaving the left and even actual moderates, as compared to centrists, with nothing to show for it.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
February 19, 2011 12:56 PM
Great piece, clenched tentacles all-around from the choir.
No offense meant to Iris in any way; really, nice writing.
I have a meta question, though, on guest-post policy.
What is the point of reposting in its entirety something that already appeared in this exact form two days ago on the author's blog?
It would have been much easier to point it out in the usual way, with a brief paragraph of praise and a hyperlink.
If it was my blog, guest-posts would have to be original material. Otherwise, seriously, what's the point? It's just blogging as usual but using a shitload more pixels.
Posted by: GMpilot
|
February 19, 2011 1:04 PM
The classical job of the court 'fool' was that under the mask of mockery, he could say things to the king that even the most sober of his ministers did not dare. He could do this because he heard things being said that were never heard by the king, and never would be heard if the fool didn't voice them.
It required subtlety, and balance...and surely we can do that! There's a lot out there that deserves mockery. We must not neglect out duty by letting the aggressively crazy have their way!
Let us never forget the power of mockery; even God, we are told, is sensitive to it.
Posted by: Susan
|
February 19, 2011 1:13 PM
I may or may not follow one of PZ's links and read what's there. What he posts here, though, I definitely read.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 1:20 PM
Sven - The point is that the author's blog gets 30 hits on a good day.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
February 19, 2011 1:21 PM
Whenever Rachel Maddow mocks Glenn Beck, she provides one or two segments prior to the mocking that put the issue at hand in perspective.
Historical, financial, and cultural perspective are Maddow's strong points. After providing context, she usually just lets Beck hang himself.
This was the case in her recent coverage of the protesters in Wisconsin. Two segments precede the short presentation of Beck associating the protesters with "chaos," with the Muslim Brotherhood, and with the anti-christ. Viewing the Beck segment alone does not give you the perspective that viewing the whole Maddow show from the beginning provides.
Maddow doesn't exactly engage in Beck-bashing. She does the journalistically responsible thing of providing context for actions taken by the far-right that might otherwise look like one-offs that are not serious or not to be taken seriously.
Beck has been riding his "chaos" and "anti-christ" hobby horse for a long time, but he really got serious with coverage of the protests in Egypt. And then he just connected the protests in Egypt to the protests in Wisconsin. He's been doing this in prime time on Fox News for more than two weeks now. My mormon neighbors believe him. Beck repeats himself, and they repeat Beck. They have been convinced. Real discussion of the issues in Wisconsin is now impossible with my neighbors since they have replaced the actual issues with images of chaos and the anti-christ. They are, effectively, blind.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 19, 2011 1:38 PM
Posted by: Iris @46,
Good one! Eh, bit of a logic fail there, but hey, considering that we are now officially, mutually consenting, disrepectful adults, that can probably be overlooked.
Sure! I guess if one is willfully ignorant of the fact that both Bush and Cheney were oil men and that both were highly cognizant of the consequences of 'Peak Oil' to both the US and the world economy. That might be true. Then again these words were spoken by a certain bumbling village idiot...
Oh, and how's that non-negotiable lifestyle working out for ya? You still eating food produced by oil? Driving a car? Using plastics? How about pesticides, herbicides, farmaceuticals, guess you've already given all those up too, right?.
One could also assume that they Bush-Cheney were probably too ignorant and stupid to grasp the strategic geopolitcal implications of being defacto in control of that particular piece of real estate. Never mind that said real estate, contains some rather significant quantities of petroleum reserves which rightfully belong, to all those people who continue to live, that, oh, so wonderful, non-negotiable lifestyle.
BTW, just curious, have you ever bothered to check how much of the aproximately 20 Mb of oil that the US consumes daily, is allocated to our peace keeping forces, whose sole purpose is to spread peace and democracy throughout the world, most especially in the Middle East? You might want to investigate that and feel free to form your own conclusions. Hope you sleep soundly at night.
As for the actual execution of the appropriation of that geopolitically insignificant little piece of real estate Bush-Cheney might have gone a just little bit overboard in their eagerness but I'm sure you must understand that the Iraqis were a somewhat reluctant to hand over our oil in exchange for their Democratic principles, (or something like that).
Heh what a deal, eh? So in conlusion, yes, that part probably could have been handled with a bit more subtlety and aplomb, but you have to admit that "Mission Accomplished" sure got quite the round of applause from from the majority at the time. Granted, in retrospect, the patina has now faded somewhat and the once gilded turd has lost some of its luster... but at the time it was a stroke of pure genius.
Perhaps if only they had paid more attention to Rumsfeld...
There was just no way they could have known...but I certainly don't think you can argue that these people were stupid or ignorant. Evil, perhaps, but not stupid! That would be letting them off without holding them accountable for their crimes against humanity, something I'm not willing to do.
Posted by: jbeck.myopenid.com
|
February 19, 2011 1:38 PM
The education of most Americans ends with high school. That does not mean they are stupid or ignorant. Many have a life-long interest in world affairs and the American economy and American history.
Stupidity in America has little or nothing to do with schooling, and almost everything to do with whom and what the person associates with. WSJ opinion page authors have fancy degrees from fancy schools and are ignorant jackasses. Show me a College Republican head honcho and I will show you and knavish-fool in the making. Republican sympathisers in this country come in three flavors - the dumb, the ignorant knave, and the knave. There is one other that crops up from time to time - the plain spoken honest type - "I want to keep my money and I don't give a damn for others."
Not only Republican leaders and gasbags should be shown up to be dumb, their sheep too must be mocked relentlessly. And this is the best time to do it, because the fatal effects of the Regan-the-Wrongone Revolution have come to roost. Our muscular foreign policy lies in tatters everywhere. We are irrelevant in Europe and our client states among the former USSR republics are all in coma - Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine etc. In the Middle East democracy is booting out our flunkies as well as our enemies alike - Mubarak and Gaddafi are both toast. Out in Asia, China is eating our lunch with robust non-Milton Friedman non-quackonomic Keynsian principles. In the South a resurgent Brazil is all set to emerge as the continent's leader. We are ceding leadership and influence everywhere. This cannot be belabored.
It's the fault of the dumb and ignorant Republican voter that has got us into the mess we are in today. If Michael Lind doesn't want to say so, I say call him for the dumbass he is.
Posted by: E.V.
|
February 19, 2011 1:38 PM
Sven, are you stumping for resident curmudgeon? I'll vote for you.
Posted by: marcus
|
February 19, 2011 1:42 PM
Please follow her link,
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/limbaugh_seems_to_have_it_out_for_his_audience/
to Rush Limbaugh's tirade against sensible nutrition that ends with the startling fact that even though Jack LaLanne was a vegetarian and a "fitness freak" that he died. Yes, died, all that icky vegetarian food and working out every day and Jack only lived a paltry 96 years.
Literally LOL!
Posted by: shonny
|
February 19, 2011 2:02 PM
What mind? Oh, that receptacle for indoctrination the right-wing-nuts mistakenly refer to as their 'brain'!
Posted by: SurlyEdition
|
February 19, 2011 2:09 PM
Wait, wait..."center left"? You show me a center left politician in America, and I'll show you a center right politician. Today's socialist was yesterday's Republican.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 19, 2011 2:12 PM
Fred the Hun:
No, I am not willfully ignorant of the fact that both Bush and Cheney were oil men and that both were highly cognizant of the consequences of 'Peak Oil' to both the US and the world economy. Even from that perspective, however, it does not make invading Iraq smart. Nor does it make their incompetence in executing that invasion competent. Hint: We could have bought the freaking country for what we've spent on the war, and with a lot fewer dead soldiers and civilians to show for it.
I don't know who you're directing this "non-negotiable lifestlye" stuff to, but I'll bite.
I eat locally and organically raised food, as much as possible. I'm a NYC greenmarket junkie.
Don't own a car. I take public transportation. As little as possible, and biodegradable when available.Organically and locally produced food minimizes petroleum use, pesticides and herbicides. I don't have a lawn, so pesticides and herbicides are minimized. I am a Type-I diabetic, however, so, yeah, I do love me some pharmaceutical insulin from time to time. You know, to stay alive.
My lifestyle is clearly negotiable: I did not always live as I do now. As I became more informed about various issues, I've made different choices. I'm not perfect; I just keep learning and trying to do better.
That is why I sleep very well at night. Thanks for asking.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 19, 2011 2:21 PM
Lind is an idiot like so many others in the media intelligencia - e.g. David Brooks.
If there are 100 voices and 10,000 watts of right wing blathering for every 1 voice and 1 watt of liberal, the problem is we're still the problem. Mice have to tell mice to quit complaining about the elephants.
Sorry but I think the right wing has already taken over and has been in control for a long time. Not until we are bone sucking dry, and and the leaches have sucked every possible way for an ordinary guy to make a decent living is there any chance of an real progressive politics emerging again rather than brief spurts like Wisconsin (i.e. another great depression). Brief example, how many treasury secretaries in recent years don't have ties to Goldman Sacks or other banksters.
As far as I can tell, the last liberal president we had was LBJ despite Vietnam; ever since then it's been Friedman/Reaganomics on and off various levels of steroids.
Posted by: https://openid.org/cujo359
|
February 19, 2011 2:24 PM
While I agree with much of what was written here, this is an exception:
I can only speak from personal experience, but after a while, what I remember about such foolishness is the person who perpetrated it, not the details of that foolishness. In other words, when I see Glenn Beck, I think of him as being a fool. I don't immediately remember all the things he said that were foolish. At best, I remember things I wrote about, but there are many examples of his foolish, some no doubt priceless, that I've encountered and utterly forgotten.
So I'd have to say that my answer would be "no".
Posted by: UberAlles
|
February 19, 2011 2:28 PM
Catching a Fever Dream. Hahahahahahaha.
I agree the Republicans are a horror, but so are the Democrat-Liberals - you want Extra Over Spending with your New Improved Over Sized Debt. The last Depression continued for over a decade even with significant Federal Spending (WPA, et. al.).
Our future is very limited. So let the printing presses roll, mama. C'mon inflation. It's time to take our medicine.
Posted by: shonny
|
February 19, 2011 2:44 PM
#71:
Good point!
Although it may seem like ad hominem attacks, the stupidity and unreason of what people like Beck and his ilk spout, they become an inseparable part of that stupidity and incivility. So all that remains when their names are mentioned is the image of the buffoon.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 2:46 PM
Iris, People look at the election of 2008 and the election of 2010 and are puzzled. It is as if there were two different electorates voting. And actually, there were. The Left was energized in 2008 and turned out in unprecedented numbers--especially the youth vote. They turned out in numbers they'd never shown before--and that is part of the problem.
In 2010, the Republicans managed record turnout--and they did so by appealing to the basest nature of their most bigoted constituents. The left stayed home. Now maybe they wanted to send a message. Well, the message they sent was that they are unreliable. That they will flake out and stay home if they don't get their way IMMEDIATELY. Hell, they didn't even give Obama 2 years. Most of them bailed before his inauguration!
Now if you were facing an election in 2 years, would you stake your chances on voters with that sort of track record? Or would you tack to the right and maybe try to snag enough voters to win another term?
Like it or not, the government we have is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. That means you vote for the least evil candidate, not the policies. In policy, there are two numbers of votes that count:
1)60 votes in the Senate
2)270 votes in the electoral college
If you fail to with those numbers in those bodies, you fail. Period. It's not like this is a new game. And yet, the left has never been able to win it in this country. Even in the 1970s, when the Republicans had shown their colors in the form of a nearly impeached a lying, evil, paranoid would-be dictator, the best we could do was elect a good-hearted, but ineffectual peanut farmer for a single term.
Until the left learns the game they will never have their concerns addressed. Not ever.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 2:58 PM
Fred the Hun, OK, so let me see if I can understand the logic.
We're running out of oil, and oil is a very important commodity for our economy. Now we could develop new sources of energy that wean us off of burning this precious commodity. And they'd be clean, and they'd be sustainable, and they wouldn't change the planet's climate. Naah! That's just crazy talk.
Let's burn the oil faster. And let's invade some third-world shitholes that have lots of the stuff and are only kept from descending into chaos by fear of dictators. And let's chose the one that serves as a counterweight to the world's most repressive theocratic kleptocracy and let that theocratic kleptocracy emerge as THE regional power...
Is that the logic the Bushies used? 'Cause that's what they did--while squandering over a trillion dollars and countless lives (literally) in the process.
The problem is that people are equating stupidity with lack of intelligence. They aren't the same. A merely unintelligent person usually does little harm. To really fuck things up, you have to be so blinded by ideology and/or religious bigotry that you fail to perceive reality. Now THAT'S STUPID. And that defines Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: cowalker
|
February 19, 2011 3:11 PM
So true. And so sad that watching "The Daily Show" and Colbert's show gives you a better idea of what is going on in the world than most news shows.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 19, 2011 3:12 PM
Iris @ 69,
You're welcome! That makes two of us for many of the same reasons, I'm fortunate in that I don't need farmaceuticals at the moment.
As far as Bush-Cheney are concerned what they did was profoundly immoral and the consequences are far reaching even to this day but what they did should not be written off to ignorance or stupidity.
They knew exactly what they were doing and why. They of course were beyond wrong in their calculus as to how things would play out. Being wrong is not necessarily the same as being stupid.
They made their decisions deliberately and with explicitly malicious intent. The world should hold the accountable for that.
In my opinion, how we use words matters greatly, to call these people stupid and ignorant gives them an excuse they do not deserve to have.
Posted by: Thanny
|
February 19, 2011 3:14 PM
Pretty good piece.
I have a bit of constructive criticism, though.
This: "it renders our opponents wielding an effective weapon"
Makes my head hurt. That is not English.
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 19, 2011 3:18 PM
I am on the fence about mockery and I am keeping my butt there for now because what I want most is to be effective. (understand of course that my best news comes from the Daily Show)
The Right is so far out of line it boggles my mind how it is taken as possibly reasonable.
That said, I have a republican family. My father watches both MSNBC and FOX News. He is in his 80's. Our family lives into their nineties. I can't see the harm of the mocking on MSNBC. My father hates bleeding heart liberals, cause he worked hard for his money and he wants to keep it. He hates Bill O'Reilly cause of the religious crap. He hates both the government and the oil companies because both were complicit in the poor management of the major disasters we have had and he knows, because he was intimately involved as a pioneer of the only successful type of skimmer that cleans up oil off the water efficiently without chemicals. And he is disillusioned with the ability of government to function well for good reason. I am pleased he at least watches both channels. I think the exposure of FOX bullshit is the best thing, and he does have a sense of humor.
Republicans have been smart by focusing on the fear buttons of their constituents ... but they may have gone too far. I am really hoping so.
I think Republicans winning the congress may have been good for the country because their agenda is becoming blatant. Their continued focus on their fucked up agenda exposes them as liars. And yes, while that makes it an obnoxious fight, that also points out all their bullshit about fiscal responsibility and their absolute insanity about bringing religion into government and stifling individual rights.
The Republicans strength is also their weakness ... they appeal to a wide spectrum of voters for very diverse reasons. When they appease some, they can't help but annoy others. Also lying cannot work forever. So mock away. Good thing someone is pointing out the obvious insanity going on. I do love good satire.
Republicans ignored the majority in the country that did not want to extend the tax cuts. That was really ballsy. I cannot see how that won't come back to bite them and I hope it hurts.
For anyone pissing on Obama for compromising, remember that just like the Republicans are trying to undo the health care bill, the extended tax cuts can also be undone. I like that Sen Sanders is keeping that on the table as they discuss the budget.
Consider the initial compromise of 3/5 of a person for slaves built into our constitution and that today we have a black president. Our country would not be where it is today were it not for that compromise. What the founders did that was brilliant was to include in our constitution, key elements that would undermine the compromises over time. I think the next key element to kick in will be "separation of church and state"
Remember, while we compromised initially, we also had a civil war. Republican extremists are like a brick wall. Sometimes you back off and appear to negotiate and other times you just blow the fuckers up. It's a matter of timing.
Posted by: Dan L.
|
February 19, 2011 3:39 PM
Apropos mocking righties, one might profitably google "Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming".
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 3:49 PM
FredtheHun,
I'm sorry, but mucking about and trying to change a society that you do not understand--especially one that stands as a counterweight to your biggest enemy in the region--is breathtakingly stupid. Ferchrissake, they didn't even have a plan to safeguard the government buildings and generating stations! Not even the ammo dumps. Dude, if they'd been up against a competent army, they probably would have even lost the war due to the overextended supply lines!
I'm sorry, but what else would you call that?
Posted by: marcus
|
February 19, 2011 4:13 PM
I agree with fred and ray, they were both stupid,and incompetent, and cynically evil (wait that's three). As poorly as they prosecuted the wars in the Middle East("cakewalk" anyone) they did manage to play the American, and most of the European, public like a fucking accordion (a squeeze here, some hot buttons there and we got ourselves a mother-fucking neo-con virtuoso performance).
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawldC_yrkLhp3B0Pskwy_f-UckggoWNatYc
|
February 19, 2011 4:13 PM
Lind is a concern troll.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 19, 2011 4:21 PM
@a_ray
If the Democrats don't intend to keep their promises, then yes, this is a problem.
I'd hardly characterize it as true that the left bailed out on him before his inauguration, and I'd like to see some support for this.
At the same time, the issue of Obama and the Democrats losing support is very much so a two-sided one. Just how many of the promises (and especially the promises based on leftist premises) has the Obama administration kept?
Is Guantanamo Bay still open? Yes.
Are many of the people that looked the other way during the real estate bubble economy still heading regulatory agencies? Yes.
Is the health care bill single-payer? Not even remotely. It's closer to the ideas of Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. It further strengthens the power of the same malevolent corporations that have made health care in the United States already such a mess.
Did Obama get the United States out of Iraq? Not really. Furthermore, he expanded the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
Did the massive rights violations of the Bush administration ever get investigated, and anyone charged accordingly? No.
Those are just a couple of issues. When you add into this that not only did the Obama administration not do the right thing and instead has preferred half-measures and employing Clinton era retreads that insulted us, like Rahm Emanuel, for not being satisfied with our crumbs.
If Republican politicians were as apathetic or even hostile to the concerns of their true constituents (the ultra wealthy) as Democratic politicians are to their voters, they would be removed from power in the party rapidly. Why should liberals and leftists put up with terrible representation instead?
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 19, 2011 4:22 PM
I define myself an independent because liberals piss me off too. Too many whine like petulant children because things didn't go the way they wanted them too. Many liberals cry when they lose and pick up their marbles and go home. I am unimpressed by that. You just can't have you way about everything all the time. And it is not an reasonable excuse to point out how awful what you didn't get is. Nothing you lose is big enough to abandon the people who are most on your side, unless there is a better prospect. And the only way you are going to get more of what you want is to stay in the game.
Obama plays politics like the game of go not chess. If you want to come out on top in the end, you have to play like go. You have stop thinking of the game as I get everything, you lose everything. In go you keep adding you pieces and the goal is to end up with more. Sometimes you fight battles that you know you can't win and walk away. But what you have done is build up influence in that area that can be used at a later time. The way you add your pieces is with long term goals in mind and you place them strategically.
Recently I saw a big story about a huge federal sting on medicare fraud. Lots of stuff is happening that is helping lay the foundation of bigger change. We will have gay marriage legal. The foundation of it was written into the constitution with the 14th amendment. It is just a matter of time and people pushing for it.
If you want more liberal agenda making the table, you have to become a loud voice to be heard. The most interesting voices I have been hearing come from change.org and the it gets better campaign. Also the tweeting of what is actually happening in congress is reaching into the mainstreams ear. Egypt was a real win for democratic agenda here.
The problem with pushing fear is after a while people get numb to it, particularly when what was feared doesn't happen. That makes time on my side.
Posted by: Misfire
|
February 19, 2011 4:27 PM
Nice Jefferson quote. There are times I enjoy:
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.
—Frederick Douglass
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 19, 2011 4:29 PM
@Alkaloid ... wish I had seen your post before mine. You are exactly the liberal I am talking about.
Things are not fast enough for you so you want to go home. Boo hoo.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 19, 2011 4:34 PM
Things won't go fast unless people push for them to fast, instead of just taking it on faith from Democratic politicians or donkeyherders like you that they will do the right thing despite the evidence that they won't.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 4:43 PM
Alkaloid, As I said, that is why your concerns will never, ever be addressed.
If blacks had stayed home and not re-elected Johnson in '64, do you think Goldwater would have rammed the civil rights legislation down the throats of the south? Do you have any idea how long blacks had to support Democratic politicians before their grievances were fully heard?
Do you have any idea how long it took to get women the right to vote?
Do you comprehend how long it took before the country would even allow non-Europeans to become naturalized citizens?
Do you realize how long the US has been trying to make even tiny incremental steps on healthcare (hint: the Roosevelt who first addressed it wasn't Franklin!)?
Do you realize how frigging hard it was to get DADT overturned?
I'm sorry. Did somebody lie to you and tell you this was going to be easy? Did you think all you'd have to do is turn out and vote one time and we'd all live in fucking paradise?
Can you count to 60? How about 270? Because it doesn't matter if 50 million people want something. What matters is if those 50 million can become reliable enough to elect politicians who will listen to them.
Do yourself a favor. Go rent Charlie Wilson's War. You'll learn a whole helluvalot more about how politics works than you know right now. Also, it's not a bad movie, despite Julia Robert's abysmal Texas accent.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 4:48 PM
Great, Alkaloid, what's your strategy? Gonna stay home on election day 2012? Boy, that'll show 'em. Yeah, the first ever black US president only gets one term. The first President who has even tried to pass legislation that addresses the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. One term. And so you realize the dreams of Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. Way to go. That'll show em. Huh!
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 19, 2011 5:09 PM
@Alkaloid You can piss on the democrats or the Republicans and you chose to piss on the democrats? And who do you think that benefits? And just how are you going to make anything happen faster that way?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 5:13 PM
Fabulous post, Iris!
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 19, 2011 5:20 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, @81,
Who said they ever gave a rodent's behind about changing any society? They just wanted to place an important chess piece on the board over there and for better or for worse they did that.
At the moment the US holds the cards in Iraq. If you want to do any business there you are not going to do it without US approval. As long as the world is an oil based economy, whoever controls Iraq is in a pretty strong position with an ace up their sleeve.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6101
Even If you play really badly against a weak opponent, when the buzzer sounds if you are up by one it doesn't matter if you just got really lucky, you still get the win and everything that goes with it including in this case the spoils.
Hopefully it doesn't all go down the drain on Obama's watch due to circumstances beyond his control such as real grass roots democratic reform throughout the ME, wouldn't that be ironic?
Look, I'm not going to waste a whole lotta effort on defending the Bush-Cheney gang and their modus operandi, all I'm saying is that they had a plan they executed that plan and we are where we are.
Personally I wish we weren't! I'd like to see gasoline at $10.00 a gallon with half of that being a tax, I'd like to see the Feds cut all subsidies to the oil companies.
And finally as someone who works with off grid solar lighting and understands thermodynamics I'd like to see Dr.Chu come out and say: "Folks it's been a nice ride but the party is over, the cheap energy is gone. We are embarking on a completely new path and paradigm, The country needs you, we are going to ask you to make enormous sacrifices, there will some very hard times ahead but we have a plan and here it is..."
Wake me up when that happens, ok?
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 19, 2011 5:35 PM
Part of what bothers me is that business interests particularly banks have a strangle hold on politics left and right. For example in the last election, Goldman Sacks, Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley all contributed >$500K to the Obama campaign in 2008 (see first link). So is it any wonder that we get feeble legislation on financial reform, people like Giethner and Summers in key positions of power(not to mention his former chief of staff), and Obama every so often having to bend over backwards and reaffirm that bank executives are nice guys after all, even though they damn near destroyed the world economy in 2008, and are still doing some pretty despicable things during the foreclosure process if you read Matt Taibbi (see second link). If you noticed, the influence and abuses of the banking industry really pisses me off.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/an-extremely-long-metaphor-to-explain-mortgage-chaos-20110101
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
February 19, 2011 5:39 PM
To assist us in our never ending and heartfelt battle against teh stupid we employ our chief weapon, reason and snark.
The two chief weapons that we employ in the ongoing (endless?) struggle against uninformed decision making are reason and snark, and a highly developed sense of when each are appropriate.
Our three most important resources that provide for the wide dissemination of scientific knowledge in the arena of public opinion are reason, ladled out in muffled terms, snark, often a first resort when it is really icing on a larger cake, the sense to know the difference between the two and a deeply seated need to talk some sense into some thick skulls (mostly the keeps of elected officials (elected!).
OK. We have numerous weapons among which are pointing and laughing and being able to explain why. That' just gravy. The main course, the meat, is proving that idiocy is simply that; idiocy.
Assertions of any kind that are poorly informed, poorly considered, poorly supported and poorly paraded past passels of preternaturally persuaded people who exhibit a paucity of perception must, as a measure of safety to civilization in general, be shown to be hollow and without support.
I know as well as the horde that there are more than one (or is it nine?) ways to skin a cat. There are demonstrably numerous ways to run large groups of people. The trick is to get them to agree on something important. They sure as hell won't do it by themselves. The trick within the trick is to get them to agree on things in a way that actually reflects the facts. In a way that reflects an understanding of reality.
So, without pointing and laughing, how the fuck does that work?
Accepting, under whatever advisement or consideration, claims that are bogus is not a good way to assuage someone's prejudices or proclivities. In my experience, a loud snort and a quick double take is a much more profitable approach. Extra points for humor that is mocking but not damaging.
People really pay attention when they are embarrassed . . .
Posted by: cag
|
February 19, 2011 5:41 PM
PZ, perhaps this is an opportunity to introduce more of us men to the rationality and snarkiness of atheist women in addition to the ones we are familiar with.
Given the topics of the last couple of days, may I suggest that you consider a form of redress by encouraging more women to be guest bloggers by allocating at least half the slots to them.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 19, 2011 5:46 PM
@A_ray, post 89:
A vital part of history that you aren't really mentioning is that in all of the cases that you brought up, there were movements that were forcing the politicians to do the right thing-with real consequences if they failed to do so (massive public demonstrations, et cetera), whether it was the civil rights movement or the Suffragettes as two examples. As far as DADT is concerned, read about the protests in favor of its repeal at Pam's House Blend. One particular phrase you might want to pay attention to is: "The GayTM is closed"
In comparison what you are advocating puts the Democratic Party first-and the issue of whether anything actually gets achieved second.
I also find your referral of Charlie Wilson's War a bit odd given that through his support for the mujaheddin, he paved the way for the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Jessie
|
February 19, 2011 5:52 PM
Iris
I went from here to have a look at the rest of your blog and have now added you to my favorites. It makes my day to find someone who writes so well. Thank you.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 19, 2011 5:54 PM
@91
I've heard this argument before and not been that convinced by it. Instead, I'll ask the following:
1) Are you committed to supporting the Democratic Party no matter what it does?
2) If so, how is this not a form of faith?
3) If not, then what is the limit beyond which you will no longer support the Democratic Party?
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 19, 2011 6:37 PM
Damn! Great post.
Take a bow, Iris.
Posted by: Marco
|
February 19, 2011 6:51 PM
I'm holding my breath for Michael Lind's article titled: "Hey, Beck: Time to give the liberal-bashing a rest."
But I'm afraid I'm going to choke before I see that one published.
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 19, 2011 7:01 PM
@Alkaloid .. I clearly stated I am an independent.
I support the best candidate. I live Vermont. We have senator Sanders - an independent. He fights Obama when Obama compromises, that's his job.
BTW You need to watch the ending of Charlie Wilson's War again ... you missed a key point there.
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia
|
February 19, 2011 7:03 PM
When it comes to Beck and company, I'm proud to be a far, left wing snob. Why suffer fools if not to mock them?
Posted by: ClarySage
|
February 19, 2011 7:04 PM
Sharp, succinct writing, Iris. Loved the piece. Posting a link to your blog on my FB page.
Posted by: It'spiningforthefyords
|
February 19, 2011 7:11 PM
It's a fine essay, but (and everyone here probably knows this) ridicule and satire are only a first step.
Often it seems reasonable people are willing to leave it at that with the ridiculous - until more evidence shows the presumed ridiculous to have a basis in reality (something that, in the case of teabaggers and Xians is as likely as the god of the Bible being shown to be real) - instead of fighting it, with a loving heart, it until the absurd ceases to be held as anything BUT absurd to everyone not literally insane.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 19, 2011 7:23 PM
Here's another aspect of the "vote for Democrats anyway" problem - if we reward them with votes when they act like lukewarm Republicans, what's to ever give them any incentive to act like actual progressives?
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 7:23 PM
Exactly right. Unless you make a wisecrack at the expense of a feminist who's playing victim on the grounds that she feels insulted because women are being referred to as "females." Then, according to Prof. Myers, we're supposed to "shut up" and "listen."
And, of course, only an chauvanist pig or someone who isn't a feminist would side against the women in such a matter.
Here, this proves it: http://angelofharlots.blogspot.com/2011/02/there-is-lot-of-buzz-going-around-in.html
So, which women should I "shut up" and "listen" to? The the apparent minority who were insulted or the majority who seem to think she was treated appropriately? (As I pointed out earlier all of the women in camera range laughed heartily at the "weaker sex" joke and some even clapped, though if one of my critics is to be believed they were really laughing out of nervous fear--hence the applause.)
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
February 19, 2011 7:26 PM
Keep crowing, Heironymous. You're still a useless idiot who matches his sig.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 19, 2011 7:27 PM
[meta]
HTTB, your off-topic trolling is pathetic, not just unamusing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 7:31 PM
Amen brother. What a loser...Posted by: echidna
|
February 19, 2011 7:35 PM
Hieronymous,
Your unintelligible proposition that PZ was referring to women in a video, and not the women speaking on this blog is worthy of ridicule.
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 19, 2011 7:56 PM
@Carlie Who do you vote for instead?
Posted by: Sunstreaked
|
February 19, 2011 8:15 PM
Bat-shit-crazy has to be addressed. Brought kicking and screaming into the light of the rational and the logical and the truthful.
Lies need to be called lies.
Partial truths need to be full truths.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator brings us nothing.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 8:43 PM
FredtheHun: "Who said they ever gave a rodent's behind about changing any society?"
Uh, well, actually they did. In both their public and private utterances, they though they could usher in an era of democracy and tolerance in the entire region just by transforming Iraq into their own little version of a city on the hill. That is how delusional they were. They really thought it would be easy--so easy that they never thought of securing munitions before it could be turned into IEDs. That is one of the dangers of propaganda--eventually the propagandist starts to believe it, too.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 8:45 PM
@all4
If you live in VT, you can really take your pick. Green, Socialist, Liberty party, VT Secession party... I mean really, there's no need to give Dems votes when they don't need them.
Did anyone catch the fuss that kicked up when Anderson Cooper referred to lies told by members of the Egyptian political elite with the inflammatory word "lies"?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 8:47 PM
HTTB: "So, which women should I "shut up" and "listen" to?"
How would it be a bad thing for you to listen to all of them? Really, why do you resent being asked to listen so much?
Posted by: fred c dobbs
|
February 19, 2011 9:01 PM
great post, iris...
personally, i don't watch any of these news-like entertainers.
i have been getting my news from pacifica radio and democracy now! for years.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
February 19, 2011 9:04 PM
So, Alkaloid, I take it you are so disgusted with the Democrats that you'll be voting in a manner that will help a Republican win next election?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 9:11 PM
Carlie asks, "if we reward them [Dems] with votes when they act like lukewarm Republicans, what's to ever give them any incentive to act like actual progressives?"
Carlie, I think your question is predicated on a misunderstanding of our political system. Let's look at the support of the Republicans by the Religious Right. Neither Reagan nor Bush I were particularly accommodating of religious conservative positions--so much so, that Bush I lost the whitehouse in 1992 because many on the right stayed home. Over time, though, the religious right became one of the most reliable blocks for the Republicans--so much so, that they could not be ignored. And so their agenda has prospered--to the detriment of the country.
Painful as this is for a person of your integrity, Carlie, you have to look at this like a politician. So imagine that you have:
1)a few ideas that you are passionate about,
2)a few areas where you are willing to compromise
3)and a few nutjob ideas you are willing to at least give lip service to in order that you can ensure you can address the ideas about which you are passionate.
And you know that if you don't get re-elected, any progress you've made gets undone by your rivals. Now we all wish our elected representatives were passionate about the same things we are. Unfortunately, progressives are always a pretty small voice in the population. The only way we ever get a voice is by being a reliable voting block. If we're the reliable 2% that makes the difference between 51% and 49%, we'll be heard. If we are not reliable, we'll be ignored. And it takes several election cycles of turning out for every election before we begin to count.
Remember, when you hear polls, they almost always limit the results to "likely voters".
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
February 19, 2011 9:12 PM
Perhaps Progressives and Liberals should give serious thought to forming their own version of the Tea Party, with a counterbalancingly crazy radical left platform to 1) energize the disillusioned liberal base to get them to turn out in numbers sufficient to become a swing block with actual power, like the fundangelicals, 2) raise the profile of so-called "far-left" ideas in the political discourse, so that the moderates and centrists will get a more direct comparison of these ideas to the "far-right" ideas, and realize that the "crazy" far-left is not actually crazy at all, 3) force the Democrats to actually fight for their base and pull them back towards the left.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
February 19, 2011 9:18 PM
My carefully considered and reasoned reply to HTTB:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Well, at least I'll give you this, you are not, as you say, a chauvAnist....
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 9:24 PM
When someone tells you the "shut up" and "listen" that usually implies that there is only one truth which must not be questioned. If there are different arguably valid points of view then telling people to "shut up" and "listen" really makes no sense.
The bloggers cited by PZ were incensed at the treatment of the woman making a stupid argument. Calling me "pathetic" is nothing more than name calling. If mocking stupid remarks is justified, then mocking a woman whose arguments even echidna refused to support would also seem to be justified.
And, the commenter may not be PZ but this IS his blog. Therefore there is a glaring contradiction here even if you are too dishonest to recognize it.
And polls do show that most women refuse to self-identify as feminists even if they do support the idea that women should be treated equally. This makes perfect sense. I support women's equality but don't respect feminists either and, hence, unlike feminists, side with the majority of women. Maybe you should take your rejection by women as a hint. (And BTW, echidna, you kept insisting my link didn't show what I said it did until I cut and pasted the actual words after which you cravenly dropped the subject. Nice work.) But no. Ignoring reality is so much more appealing.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 9:26 PM
No, ARIDS, sorry, you don't keep letting Lucy hold the football for you, only to take it away, time after time.
The Dems have slid into being abusive spouses of liberals. They kick us and beat us and hurt us, time after time, and they remind us that we have nowhere else to go.
Bullshit. There is always somewhere else to go. You have to make that space for yourself.
The way you end abuse is to break the fucking cycle of abuse. You do that by getting the fuck away from your abuser, severing all ties, never looking back.
We cannot change that the Democratic party is a bunch of spineless corporate-fellating wimps who take out their self-loathing on the spouse who has been the only one to stand by them through everything.
It's time to accept that reality, and move on.
The left needs to start their own party, and take the time to build it into something from the bottom up. It will involve pain and sacrifice and disappointments.
But it's the only option left. We can't trust the Democrats anymore.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 9:28 PM
#122
Wrong fucking thread, male privilege fucktard. Take it somewhere else, or suffer the consequences.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 19, 2011 9:31 PM
Amphiox: Perhaps you would be better served asking that question of someone who actually has some meaningful influence over the way the Democratic Party and its politicians act.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 9:32 PM
Alkaloid says, "I also find your referral of Charlie Wilson's War a bit odd given that through his support for the mujaheddin, he paved the way for the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan."
Wow, Dude, way to miss the point. You sure you saw the movie? Remember the quote at the end that says we made these things happen and "Then we fucked up the endgame".
Do you really think that blacks just suddenly rose up in 1964 and told LBJ to pass the Civil Rights act or else? Do you really think that nothing happened with women's suffrage until they were suddenly granted the right to vote?
Are you really that naive?
Since you ask, I support the Dems over the Reps right now because the former at least acknowledge physical reality, while the latter reject it. Under Democratic regimes, science will get some funding, and maybe we can figure out how deep we're in the soup with climate change, environmental degradation and depletion of resources. Under Republican administrations, science will be utterly distorted, suppressed and even prosecuted (look at Virginia with Ken the Cooch). As long as the Republicans are the party of anti-science and the Democrats embrace science the Democrats will have my vote.
And the fact of the matter is that DADT did disappear under Obama and the Democrats, and it did so under the shrill protestations of the Republicans.
The options are as follows
1)Make things better
2)Let them get worse
I'm sorry, but Utopia is not on the menu.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 19, 2011 9:35 PM
[meta]
I see the troll ignores Iris Vander Pluym's most excellent post.
It can't even troll on-topic!
Bah.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 9:40 PM
Aquaria: "We can't trust the Democrats anymore."
Aquaria, I'm sorry, I respect your opinion on most issues, but here you have no idea what you are talking about. How long has the country been holding elections? 219 years, right? And how many parties have managed to achieve national influence? Maybe 5, if your generous. Do you really think we will have greater influence if all we do is talk to ourselves? Do you realize how much money you are talking about to elect even a single representative?
Sorry, Aquaria, but politics is the art of the possible. Abandon the Dems and you hand the country to Sarah Palin. Because those are the choices
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
February 19, 2011 9:41 PM
What is wrong with you people? It's not nice to mock and ridicule other people, even if they are delusional and/or idiots. When you do that, among other things, it scares women away--which is probably why there are no women on Pharyngula.
Please follow my good example, and never use snark to make a point.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 9:45 PM
Regarding the first quote. PZ rather cravenly ended the original thread thus making it impossible for me to post there.
Regarding both: I have explicitly tied this thread to the one about supposed male sexism at the atheist meeting. People were incensed that the woman's remarks were mocked. This is a thread justifying mockery. If you are so stupid that you can't even understand such a simple connection, then I'm obviously dealing with hopeless idiots.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 9:46 PM
I agree the Republicans are a horror, but so are the Democrat-Liberals
Fuck you,
you want Extra Over Spending with your New Improved Over Sized Debt.
The overspending that we have is ENTIRELY toward the military, from which our economy gets precious little in comparison to social programs.
You could send every child in America to college if you cut the Defense budget by a measly 10%.
Wrap your mind around that idea, fuckwit.
It's not the spending that's the problem. All advanced nations spend a great deal, too, BECAUSE CIVILIZATIONS COST MONEY, FUCKFACE.
It's that cheap selfish moochers like you want all the benefits of civilization, but don't want to pay for it.
Fuck you.
The last Depression continued for over a decade even with significant Federal Spending (WPA, et. al.).
You are a fucking idiot.
You don't seem to realize just how bad the Depression was, or how much the federal spending HELPED the situation, for America and the world. People were fucking starving. Unemployment now is nothing compared to what it was then. Business failures were much higher. Banks not only shut down, but took people's life savings with them completely (FDIC reduces that somewhat).
FDR's programs got people who wanted to work some jobs and some dignity. He got the banks going again. He got businesses some help.
It takes time to recover from things like that. We'd had ugly financial meltdowns before, and it took time with those, too. Only you are too fucking stupid not to know that.
If you had it your way, we'd have the 1880s again, with a few rich people living in extravagant wealth, a few people in the middle with a bit of money to have a farm and some decent frills, and everybody else living in gut-wrenching, genocidal poverty.
We tried doing it the libertarian way. IT DID NOT WORK.
Most people lived short, brutal lives, and they will again if you liberturds get your way. But that's what you want, isn't it, you with all your goodies, or thinking you will have more of them if you don't have to pay those pesky taxes (who says you won't be living in poverty like the rest of us?), and hooray! another poor person died. That's what selfish scumbags like you must want, because that will be what happens.
The only thing the invisible hand of the market does is give the middle finger to 90% of the population
Go back into your cave and kill yourself, you waste of oxygen.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 9:48 PM
John:
Only its own braying is of interest, John. It doesn't care at all about the topic, it just didn't get to whine and moan enough about the evil wimmins. In brief, a Cupcake is a Cupcake.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 9:51 PM
HTTB keeps trying to make a point, but can't use the three sentence rule. If you I can't tell where you are going in three sentences (or lines if long sentences), I stop reading as you are an idjit fuckwit. Keep trying. Although, silence might be your best effort though. Consider it an option you should take.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 9:54 PM
I am not moaning about "the evil wimmins." My target is specifically a feminist making a stupid argument who is stupidly being defended and PZ for telling us to "shut up" and "listen." I have been very clear about that. What does it say about your position that you need to so dishonestly misrepresent my point? Most women are just fine.
And, again, I have tied my point to the topic of this thread. If mockery is justified when someone says something stupid then mocking a feminist making the incredibly stupid argument that "female" is a derogatory term is also justified.
If you're right, how come you're the one who can't seem to represent the facts accurately?
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 9:57 PM
This, of course, is an ad hominem attack citing a completely arbitrary rule. You, therefore, are the "idjit fuckwit."
Posted by: BoxNDox
|
February 19, 2011 9:59 PM
Great first guest post, and a_ray's followups at #38, #39, #51 and so on are are totally full of win.
Over the past two years I've watched with increasing dismay as many of the 2008 Obama supporters have jsut faded away. And the notion that disillusionment with what they're now asked to support is a crock - no matter how liberal/progressive the cause, they're simply not interested.
It's like having won one skirmish - albeit a major one - they viewed their work as done and it's all somebody else's problem now. Alas, that's just not how politics works. Decisive victories are extremely rare and battles often have to be fought over and over and over again.
I'm also getting tired of people either not paying attention or hearing what they wanted to hear, and then finding fault on that basis. For example, it's not like Obama was in any way unclear during the campaign about what he intended to do in Afghanistan. (I vehemently disagreed with him both then and now, but that's really beside the point.) Yet when he went and actually, you know, did it, it's like he flip-flopped on his position.
And for those who see no absolutely difference between the past two years in Washington and the first two years under the Shrub - and there are plenty who says this sort of stuff - that's almost as bad as blindly believing the noise that eructs from the right-wing blowhards. Almost.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:03 PM
One suggestion no one has been making yet is that of a Constitutional convention under Article V of the constitution. From Wikipedia:
"According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States”, and therefore 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then each of those amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution."
It would be extremely risky, especially given today's political climate, but I don't see how we get rid of detritus like the execrable decision declaring corporations "persons" and take control of the electoral process again without some radical measure.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:04 PM
Hieronymus The Troll Braindead, you're trolling in the wrong thread. Why don't you take your hatred of the wimmens and go elsewhere? Saudi Arabia should be misogynist enough for you.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 19, 2011 10:09 PM
What is the DNC doing to try and combat Republicanism in its ranks? Ten Democrats voted for the House bill to repeal funding for Planned Parenthood. Ten. Ten Democrats who had been elected as Democrats with the backing of the DNC, even though their viewpoints are in opposition to the party platform. What kind of quality control is that? What kind of trust is that? What does it even mean to be a Democrat, when these people can claim the mantle and be endorsed by the party?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:09 PM
Again, Heironymous, what is your objection to listening?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:10 PM
Regarding the first quote. PZ rather cravenly ended the original thread thus making it impossible for me to post there.
Cravenly? Seriously, cravenly. That shitfest went on for two threads and two thousand comment over two days before PZ ended.
Sorry, fuckface, but this blog does not revolve around you.
What a self centered whiny MRA.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 10:14 PM
Wow. What a brazenly retarded remark. Again, I have repeatedly tied me point to this thread. This thread justifies mockery. PZ and his feminists pals were offended that a woman making the really stupid argument that the term "female" is somehow derogatory towards women was mocked. If mockery is justified then there's no reason to be offended or self righteous.
And most of the women thought the crack about "the weaker sex" was funny. They laughed! They applauded! I'm with the majority! You're not! So fuck you and your moronic accusation of misogyny. I think most women are just fine. I simply refuse to put up with baseless sanctimony just because it's being used to attack men.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:15 PM
Carlie, If women turn out the DINOs in the primary, then you might start seeing a bit more backbone among Democrats on the issue of reproductive rights. The problem is that at this point, the issue loses the candidates more votes than it gains them.
Politics is not about what is right and wrong. It is about counting. Remember the story about what Adlai Stevenson said when told that he had the vote of every decent, thinking person in the country:
"That's very flattering, Madame, but unfortunately, I need a majority."
We have to find a way to become that majority.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 19, 2011 10:16 PM
This whole thing is so frustrating and heartbreaking and so, so infuriating. I KNOW that in our ridiculous system that anything other than a Democratic vote at the top level is just a win for Republicans. I KNOW that grass-roots local activism is the best I can shoot for, I KNOW that there's a certain amount of political pandering that has to go on. But when it's the same groups getting thrown under the bus over and over and OVER again, where's the outlet for that rage? For example, Democrats are all over "we're the only ones who protect abortion rights" for two months before elections, and then inbetween allow and support all kinds of legislation that chips away at it. Obama issued an executive order reaffirming the Hyde amendment, for pete's sake. And I don't care how political it was, it's that the same groups are ALWAYS the bargaining chips. Women and the poor and minorities and gay people and unions are always the ones who are cheap enough to be negotiated away. It gets really fucking old.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 10:16 PM
PZ lets other threads go on and this one had an enormous amount of interest. Plus, the facts clearly weren't on his side, fuckface.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 10:18 PM
No, you ditzy, toxic Cupcake. The first thread went over 1000, so it was shut down. PZ generously opened a follow up thread for continuance. That went to 980 and showed no signs of slowing. People have problems loading such bloated threads, and it has long been standard to shut such threads down (no matter the topic) when they hit such numbers.
It.is.your.own.fault. you showed up too late to get your full amount of whine in, Sugarbrain.
No one is obligated to give you a heads up as to posts in which you have a vested interest in whining about.
You are now actively trolling and trying to derail a good, worthwhile discussion of a guest post. It's disrespectful, to say the least. Of course, I suppose since the author of this post is a woman, it doesn't count, eh?
Do everyone a favour, Cupcake, and choke on your own bile. If you can't manage that, shut.the.fuck.up.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 19, 2011 10:19 PM
Cross-posted with you on that one. So, how? That's where I always end up curled in a ball after hitting my head against the wall too many times.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:21 PM
Heironymous says, "Again, I have repeatedly tied me point to this thread."
Oh, now that's fucking funny. You think that all you have to do to be on topic is use the central word in the title of the post in a single sentence. Dude, were you raised by wolves? No, scratch that. Wolves are social animals. You wouldn't last 30 seconds in a wolf pack...though it is a nice thought
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 10:21 PM
Carlie:
QFT.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 10:22 PM
Phew! Case closed guys. This guy's no misogynist. I'm sure he has a black friend too.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:22 PM
Old fuckface quotes me yet he does not address what I said. Also, old fuckface could not bother to come up with a different insult.
Self centered whiny MSA.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:24 PM
HTTB, I use the three sentence rule to killfile incoherent trolls. You fit the bill idjit. You are now killfiled as someone not worth reading. What an idjit fuckwtit. If you had only shown some cogency...
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 10:26 PM
Dear Caine fleur de mal,
Again, I have repeatedly tied my point to this thread. If mockery is justified then mockery is justified. Hence the threads are tied.
Look, PZ and his feminist pals were infuriated that a woman making the brazenly stupid complaint that the term "female" is somehow derogatory towards women was mocked by the moderated who suggested the term "weaker sex" as a replacement--a joke that went over with a bang, including an apparent majority of the women many of whom applauded. PZ went all Bill Donahue about it telling men to "shut up" and "listen" as if only the feminists who were pissed off had opinions that really counted. Now here we are with a thread defending mockery as just. See?
You can insult me all you want but it seems to me that the blog has irreconciable differences with itself. The fact that people are levelling personal attacks against me and accusing me of things I am not, makes me think that I must be on to something.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 10:26 PM
Aquaria, I'm sorry, I respect your opinion on most issues, but here you have no idea what you are talking about.
My family has been active in the Democratic Party since Jefferson. I am related to many of the famous and infamous Southern Democratic legends, like the Longs and the Gores. My best friend is the cousin of Edwin Edwards. Another close friend was married to the son of Congressman Roy Clark. My son's babysitter was Lawton Chiles's niece. My uncle was a county Democratic chairman for DECADES. Another uncle was mayor of the city where he lived.
But those are connections, that don't make you political necessarily. How many campaigns have you worked on? I'm talking about being one of the "last people to leave the headquarters" type of campaigners? Because I was that person until a few years ago, when I couldn't ignore how deep the party was sliding into an abyss.
There's a picture of me on my grandfather's shoulders at barely two years old, waving a flag and wearing an LBJ '64 button at a parade, I stuffed envelopes for Bobby Kennedy when I was six years old, more for McGovern, knocked on doors for Carter in '76 (at all of 14), and I had guns pulled out and pointed at me when I was campaigning for Ted Kennedy in 1980. I endured the painful Carter campaign of 1980, as well, and got to have the first election I could vote in turn out badly. I worked on Mondale's campaign in California, Dukakis's in South Dakota, Bill Clinton's in California AND in Texas, and Al Gore's and Kerry's in Texas. I did not work on Obama's campaign, the first time since I can remember that I didn't contribute in some way to a campaign.
I have worked on my state legislative campaigns than you can imagine.
And I have watched my party abandon Texas, precinct by precinct, county by county, district by district. They couldn't even be bothered to support candidates anymore. I look at the ballots for counties all over Texas (not even mine!), and I see Republicans running unopposed up and down the ballot. Why?
I have watched Democratic "consultants" consult the party into embarrassing losses, time after time, and be brought back to do it all over again the next time. You know what happens to Republican gurus who fuck up? They get axed--for good. You don't see Mary Matalin running campaigns anymore, do you? They find her cushy admin positions after they win elections, because they do not forget failure, unlike the Democrats.
That you could tell me I don't know politics is the most insulting thing I can imagine.
--more below--
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:29 PM
Old fuckface, take it to the undead thread.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 10:29 PM
Nerd:
Same here. It's definitely time to starve the Cupcake of attention as well. No point letting Iris's fabulous post be poisoned.
Comment by Hieronymus The Troll Braintree blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
February 19, 2011 10:30 PM
Sven, I just don't follow the links that often. Have homework to do, life to live, etc. This I read, in full, because I at least skim Pharyngula posts and read most of them. Now that I know what a good writer Iris is, on a day when I have the time, I'll probably see what else she's written. PZ is doing everyone a service by letting good 'speakers' have a turn at his soapbox.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:31 PM
HTTB, I met many a pompous ass like you during my academic days. Usually some loser in humanities/philosophy. I always wondered why their ego was so inflated, in spite of the evidence that they were bombastic idjits.
Reality, meet the loser. Loser, meet reality, and lose the 'tude dude.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 10:32 PM
Ugh--Roy Taylor--Not Roy Clark. What was I thinking?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:33 PM
A_ray: "We have to find a way to become that majority."
Carlie: "So, how? That's where I always end up curled in a ball after hitting my head against the wall too many times."
A_ray: I really wish I knew, sweetie. But I'm not about to stop trying. I've got a pretty hard head--I was famous for it as a child.
Somehow, we need to show people that the key to getting where they want to be is progress, not retreat. We have to make progress more interesting, and fun and profitable than the alternatives the Republicans are offering.
I don't think we can get there as a purely political movement. The strength of parties like Hezbollah and Hamas in the Arab world shows us that social movements can change the political equation. Americans tend to embrace progress--but only when they've exhausted all other alternatives. Eventually, though, they need to wise up and see who their real enemies are.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 19, 2011 10:34 PM
Troll tries to derail.
Troll fails.
--
In Defense of Mockery
by Iris Vander Pluym
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 10:34 PM
Censorship is a confession of weakness. You can censor this as well, but you're showing what a pathetically poor loser you are.
Congrats, cupcake.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 10:35 PM
How long has the country been holding elections? 219 years, right?
What does that have to do with anything? A party can change on a dime. Look at the Democrats, circa 1930.
And how many parties have managed to achieve national influence? Maybe 5, if your generous.
It doesn't mean another one can't, if people try. It doesn't mean you have to stick with one of them that isn't serving your interests anymore.
Do you really think we will have greater influence if all we do is talk to ourselves?
We are talking to ourselves. That's what you don't get. The Democrats DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. Please understand that. They throw you dog crumbs, just like the Republicans throw their most extreme Religious Right nutcases a few crumbs.
The problem is that there are more of us and we are saner than theirs--we actually have some ideas that are worth pursuing. Why are we being treated like the loonies of they looney Right, by the party that supposedly "represents" us?
It's because the Democratic Party's interests and your interests and mine are no longer the same.
They haven't been, for 20 years now, at least.
Do you realize how much money you are talking about to elect even a single representative?
More than you know. I've run the books for numerous campaigns. Your point? Do you think that there is no money for other candidates out there? Are you that cynical about your fellow humans and liberals? Really?
Sorry, Aquaria, but politics is the art of the possible.
You can't get to the possible without giving people an idea of what possible is. The Democrats aren't even trying anymore.
Abandon the Dems and you hand the country to Sarah Palin.
The abusive spouse "You have nowhere to go, who would want you" thing again? Thanks for making my point.
Because those are the choice
They're always the only choices--as long as you let them be the only choices.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 10:36 PM
So, really it's about organizing. Remember how ACORN got shut down? That was strategic. And it worked, thanks to the right wing stranglehold on the media.
Our problem is multifaceted.
1. The media - getting credible mainstream news orgs giving equal time to lefty causes & thinking heads. How to compete with Murdoch? Who has his deep pockets and is as passionate?
2. The funding - who's the RW equivalent of the Koch bros? Really there's no one. That's the thing about allying yourself with the poor and the needy rather than the wealthy and powerful. It takes 20x as much energy and effort to match their power.
3. The corporate personhood thing, Citizens v. United, and funding of political campaigns. Do we need a constitutional amendment to remove this? While we're at it, let's rewrite the shareholder clause and define a corporation's responsibilities as including the environment in which it operates as well as the communities that inhabit that environment. I believe someone's already on this, though they're kinda woo - it's the Network of Spiritual Progressives that is proposing this. The content isn't woo. The idea is a fucking pipe dream - but then so was women's suffrage and civil rights.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 10:39 PM
If I'm the loser, how come you're the one who's reduced to ad hominem attacks?
Is this one going to be censor this one too?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 19, 2011 10:41 PM
The one thing that I do like is New York's system of voting. There are something like 7 major parties (and then the odd new ones like the rent is too damn high party) and all have lines on the ballot. Most do endorse one or the other of the major candidates, but votes are counted by party. So a Democratic candidate who gets, say, 60% of his votes from the Green party voting line knows that they are his/her major constituents and the platform that needs to be pushed, and one who gets most of their votes from the Working Families party knows what their constituents care about, etc. I'd like to see a similar system in place in more states. It's still holding one's nose and dealing with what's there, but in a way that at least says "I don't agree with you on everything, and you need to pay attention to this group that most closely represents me".
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment by Hieronymus The Troll Braintree blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 10:44 PM
Aquaria,
I don't disagree with you on the sorry state of the Democratic party and of politics in particular. What I haven't seen from you is a cogent and coherent diagnosis of why things have gotten so bad. I simply do not believe that all politicians are bad people. I think most really want to make things better. I also don't believe that most politicians are idiots--though the influx of tea partiers has shifted things in that direction.
Since you are from a political family, then you must realize the futility of reaching power by a third party in the US. The last successful third party was the Republicans--and they succeeded only after the Whigs effectively died out.
In the '60s and '70s, even into the '80s, the electorate was not divided 50-50 as it is now. You didn't have the possibility that a voting block of loons could swing an election. Occasionally, a politician could even take a political risk without too much fear of losing his seat to someone he detested and seeing all of his accomplishments undone.
What matters Aquaria are solutions for improving the situation. I don't think handing the Presidency to Sarah Palin in 2012 will improve things.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 10:45 PM
@ Carlie
Good point.
I'm also cautiously in favor of IRV, instant runoff voting. They've done it in the city where I live, and although there's been a bit of whining about disenfranchised candidates, and the mayor is a total disaster, these aren't insurmountable problems, nor are they necessarily associated with IRV.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:45 PM
QFT. Too little time for idiocy.Posted by: bastion of sass
|
February 19, 2011 10:46 PM
all4kindness2all wrote:
That doesn't seem very kind to me.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 10:49 PM
SallyStrange:
This alone is a massive problem. Only the right wingers, a la Fox, feel free to say whatever the fuck they want, mocking left and right, baldfaced lying, etc.
Even those in the msm who aren't right wing are pretty much too mealy-mouthed to confront the constant river of crap and actual reporting seems to have gone the way of the Dodo for the most part*.
*Yes, I know there are some, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 10:53 PM
Again, Nerd of Redhead, OM,
Censorship is a sign of weakness. I specifically tied my point to this thread on multiple occasions and all anybody could do was attack me personally and resort to irrelevancies. I stuck to verifiable facts.
PZ told male skeptics to "shut up" and "listen" to feminist bloggers who now appear to have been a tiny minority of offended women as if their unpopular opinion was beyond question. Most women seemed just fine with the ridicule leveled at the woman who complained that "female" was a derogatory word. NO ONE here has defended that remark.
This thread defends ridicule. Obviously both positions can not be true. Either ridicule is OK or it isn't. Angry feminists do not deserve special treatment or demand to be coddled.
You can call me an idiot all you want. What strikes me as conspicuous is your complete inability to mount anything like an intelligent argument against my point.
But please feel free to root for people who are censoring me. I can well understand your position.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 19, 2011 10:56 PM
Idiot troll: if you had any guts you'd be posting on the open thread. The one prominently displayed at on the left bar of the page.
I kinda hope you persist, though, as you shall likely be banned.
--
↓↓↓↓
In Defense of Mockery
by Iris Vander Pluym
↑↑↑↑
The topic is the content of this post (it is a guest post, it has nothing to do with PZ whatsoever) and not the title.
--
Your pointless pathetic puling is wasted here.
So, you pusillanimous picayune coward, instead of whining about being censored (you're not, of course — all your droppings are there for anyone to see) and stop cluttering this thread?
(I of course have no belief you'd actually dare to read Iris's superlative cogent exposition and actually comment on that.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2011 10:58 PM
Loser is till posting...Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 10:59 PM
@ Caine -
Yeah, like I said, Anderson Cooper caught SO MUCH FLAK just for saying that some Egyptian politicians lied, when they did in fact lie.
Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly back in 2004 when he addressed the manufactured "controversy" over John Kerry's war record.
Here's the relevant bit, in case you don't want to (or can't) watch the video.
Stewart: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the U.S. military, and hasn't been disputed for 35 years.
Corddry: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
Stewart: That's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.
Corddry: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.
Stewart: But isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?
Corddry: I'm sorry, "my opinion"? I don't have oh-pin-ee-yons. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called "objectivity"—might want to look it up some day.
Stewart: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?
Corddry: Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 19, 2011 11:00 PM
Old fuckface, being ignored is not the same as being censured.
Self centered, whiny, and stupid MRA.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 11:02 PM
Also, being censured is not the same thing as being censored.
;)
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:03 PM
Aquaria: "They're always the only choices--as long as you let them be the only choices."
OK, what is your alternative? Now keep in mind that while the Dems are pathetic, they are not nearly as crazy or evil as the Republicans. We've got two threads active right now that illustrate that--on defunding Planned Parenthood and Union busting. We also have the issue of climate denial and anti-science in general. There is a clear distinction on all of these issues between Dems and Rethugs, I hope you will agree.
And in 2012, we likely have Obama running unopposed and on the Republican side: Romney, Palin, Bachman... Now, I'll be the first to admit disappointment in Obama, but I hope you will agree that he is better than Bachman, Romney or Palin.
And keep in mind that the Supreme Court--indeed most of the Federal courts--are now thoroughly right wing.
OK, so my bottom line is keeping two of three branches of government out of the hands of the Republicans.
If you want to do that via a third party, I have to say that history is not kind to your argument. The last third-party candidate to break 10% was John Anderson in 1980--and all he accomplished was handing the Presidency to Reagan.
George Wallace...no influence. Teddy Roosevelt? All he did was keep Taft out.
But convince me: How would the country avoid a Palin presidency if progressives abandon the Dems?
Posted by: jafafahots
|
February 19, 2011 11:06 PM
If you're not ridiculing them, you're not being honest.
That's all the motivation I need, personally.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:09 PM
Heironymous, Has anyone taken the time today to tell you what a pathetic, limp-dicked, turd-fondling troll you are. Just wanted you to know we care...well, not really.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 19, 2011 11:09 PM
SallyStrange, you got me. You do not want to see what my posts would look like if I did not have spell check.
But I will end now. I would like this thread to get back on the rail.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 11:11 PM
I don't disagree with you on the sorry state of the Democratic party and of politics in particular. What I haven't seen from you is a cogent and coherent diagnosis of why things have gotten so bad. I simply do not believe that all politicians are bad people. I think most really want to make things better. I also don't believe that most politicians are idiots--though the influx of tea partiers has shifted things in that direction.
You didn't ask for my ideas. You said that I had to support the Democrats or else all these terrible things would happen. You also said that I didn't know politics.
I didn't know you wanted me to lay out precisely what to do to get liberals elected again.
But here is the short list:
1. Fire every Democratic consultant who has lost an election.
2. Stop trying to be everything to everyone. It makes you look shallow and indecisive. Americans hate that.
3. Stand up for what you believe in, and don't apologize for having strong principles. You look weak and cowardly otherwise. Americans hate that, too, and rightly so. They think that if you can't even stand up for yourself, why on earth would they trust you to stand up for them?
4. Sometimes, compromise is NOT the answer. Stop doing it, especially when you end up giving away everything and other side gives up NOTHING.
5. You don't need a 50 state strategy--You need a bottom up, Dean-style grassroots in EVERY precinct of America. Stop paying those loser consultants, and you might have enough to develop this more fully. Bonus: It's the absolute best way to develop candidates for the future.
That's a short list.
There's more.
So much more.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:13 PM
Heironymous: "NO ONE here has defended that remark."
Assclown, no one has defended that remark because it's FUCKING OFF TOPIC. Are you really so dim that you don't understand that?
Now, please, go jerk off to Internet porn. The grown ups are trying to have a discusssion.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 11:15 PM
Actually John Morales, I have read Iris's "superlative cogent exposition." My point is that if ridicule is OK then it's OK and that contradicts this blogs earlier insistence that men "shut up" and "listen" when a feminist is making the patently ridiculous argument that "female" is a derogatory term. (Haven't I already made this point to you?) Not only that but I have repeatedly tied my point to this thread. NO ONE has come up with an intelligent reason why that is not so. As I have pointed out, both assertions cannot be true. One has to be false. I largely agree with Iris. I don't agree with PZ.
Who do you agree with?
But thanks for the ad hominen attack and your wish that I be permanently censored. That's exactly the sort of thinking I would have predicted from you.
So, you tell me,John Morales, is ridicule OK or isn't it, seeing as you're so anxious to stick to the topic of this thread? And if ridicule is OK then should not a woman who complains that "female" is a derogatory word for women be a ripe target?
I mean, that does tie in to the subject of this thread, does it not?
And to Ned of Redhead
Ad hominen attacks w/o a solid argument to back it up is a confession that you lack anything intelligent to say. You lack anything intelligent to say.
Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree
|
February 19, 2011 11:20 PM
Is this really the best you can do? Wow. If my critics are so right why are they resorting to censorship and insults?
Until someone makes something resembling an intelligent argument I declare victory over this thread.
Censor that, bitches.
Posted by: llewelly
|
February 19, 2011 11:22 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, Death's Wellness Consultant | February 19, 2011 4:43 PM:
On the other hand, the blacks were a reliable voting block for the Republicans from the end of the US Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression. Response: The Republicans made only the most superficial effort to enable the blacks to actually use their right to vote.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:26 PM
Aquaria,
1. Fire every Democratic consultant who has lost an election.
I also hate the consultants. However, even Karl Rove lost an election or two, and while he is the pulsing heart of evil, he is a decent consultant. Moreover, I don't know of any modern candidate who has won an election by eschewing the consultants.,
2. Stop trying to be everything to everyone. It makes you look shallow and indecisive. Americans hate that.
A very risky strategy in a 50-50 country. It waas a lot easier when candidates had some security. Even now, the most interesting candidates are those who know they won't be thrown out for a mistake.
3. Stand up for what you believe in, and don't apologize for having strong principles. You look weak and cowardly otherwise. Americans hate that, too, and rightly so. They think that if you can't even stand up for yourself, why on earth would they trust you to stand up for them?
It would appear that in recent elections the voters want the candidate to stand up for what they believe in rather than what the candidate believes in. Again, until voters quit choosing candidates purely on hot-button issues, I don't see this happening. Care to name some elections where it has worked to the candidates advantage to diverge significantly from the prejudices of his constituents?,
4. Sometimes, compromise is NOT the answer. Stop doing it, especially when you end up giving away everything and other side gives up NOTHING.
Agreed, but you still have to get 60 votes in the Senate and 270 in the Electoral college. I don't know how you do this without compromise.
5. You don't need a 50 state strategy--You need a bottom up, Dean-style grassroots in EVERY precinct of America.
Here, I at least agree. I liked Howard Dean, and I think that a Progressive party cannot win purely on politics. People don't trust the motivations of someone who says they are looking out for their interests unless they know it is true.
Now, I still don't see how you accomplish this with a third party in time to keep Sarah Palin out of the oval office.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
February 19, 2011 11:28 PM
No worries Janine. I tend to catch that kind of thing - I was a high school newspaper copy editor.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 19, 2011 11:29 PM
Old fuckface:
"Whhhaaaa! Wwwwhhhaaaaaaaaa! I win the thread!"
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:31 PM
Llewelly, Republicans could win just fine without black votes. They didn't need them. They controlled the politics until 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt handed the Democrats a gift. We didn't have a 50-50 country then where every vote counted.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 19, 2011 11:33 PM
SallyStrange:
I know. The insanity is at a fever pitch and holding. I'm afraid stating the truth has become something that people in the msm are simply afraid to do.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 19, 2011 11:36 PM
Heironymous the turd fondler: "Is this really the best you can do?"
Oh, no. It's just all you're worth. Now go play with matches and die in a fire.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 19, 2011 11:41 PM
You're still trying to hold people hostage to a party that is doing too little, because the alternative is to slowly slide into the abyss, rather than jumping right into it?
I guess it depends on if you like a sudden or lingering death.
So a few of them get some fucking spines here and there?
IT NEVER LASTS.
Now if they can hold this stance and actually, you know, do something for once in their sorry lives that actually does something to help people, without selling us out, then I might come back.
Until then? Fuck 'em. They are letting a Palin be possible, sooner or later, with their cowardice and their sniveling and their compromising we the people into the 1880s. FUCK 'EM.
The only way you can get them to get off their asses and LISTEN and DO is to :::drum roll, please::: make them listen to you. You do this by NOT GIVING THEM MONEY OR VOTING FOR THEM. As long as you keep supporting them, they are not going to straighten up. They're going to think, "Hey, we must be doing something right--they keep voting for us and giving us money!" THIS IS REALITY.
How many of them voted for the Planned Parenthood defunding--and suffered ZERO consequences for it?
How many of them voted for the Iraq war--without suffering consequences for it?
When Joe Lieberman didn't win the Connecticut primary and he ran anyway for the seat that power-crazed toad wanted, what consequences did he suffer for it? The corporatists in the Dem party came running to help, and gave him money and support, and he won the election. Worse, he was given political perks for it!
That is just fucking STUPID.
Harry Reid is a worm who will sell out his mother. Pelosi can't seem to figure out how to twist arms consistently, and she doesn't know how to rein in members who go off the reservation. The state Democratic parties in the south have been all but destroyed from neglect, and non-battleground states aren't in much better shape. The county parties are in disarray and most of them operate on a budget that would make homeless advocacy groups take pity on them.
The party has no leadership, no clear vision, no discipline--unless it involves corporate interests.
For over three decades, I did all I could to make things better. I gave of my time, my effort, and my money. Things only got worse--the party became more conservative, more timid, more craven. It's now painfully close to what it was when my great-grandparents were Democrats, and that my grandparents did all they could to change, when they were not super rich (you can come from old families and be dirt poor, you know).
At some point, you realize that the problems with the Dems are too big for any one person to fix. Worse, even if you could get enough people, you will have a formidable battle on your hands against the entrenched corporatist sellouts in the party.
Good luck, if you think you can do anything about them. I learned the hard way that you cannot.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 20, 2011 12:11 AM
Here's a crazy idea to throw out just for the hell of it. If CEO's make 400X the average salary of a worker or whatever, what if a law was passed limiting it to say 20X. Would there be anything unconstitutional about that? Seems like that might change the incentives on how companies operate.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
February 20, 2011 12:24 AM
I also hate the consultants. However, even Karl Rove lost an election or two, and while he is the pulsing heart of evil, he is a decent consultant.
You do have a learning curve with the Republicans. But it stops around the statewide races. My emphasis earlier was on national/statewide races, although some of my fury is directed at the way the Democrats have treated locals around the country, and that's where I did most of my work for national campaigns.
BTW, do you want to know how many campaigns Al Frum has consulted on and not won?
It would shock you silly.
Moreover, I don't know of any modern candidate who has won an election by eschewing the consultants.,
I didn't say they never worked. But what I do want to see is Al Frum never hired again. EVER. Or Donna Brazille. Or any of the other losing consultants. They keep getting chances. Al Frum has been fucking up Dem candidates for DECADES. That has to stop. Make every single one of them earn it AGAIN.
A very risky strategy in a 50-50 country. It waas a lot easier when candidates had some security. Even now, the most interesting candidates are those who know they won't be thrown out for a mistake.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
When the country was moderately left, the Republicans didn't say, Oh, we need to play nice and compromise. They entrenched. They got more outrageous. They stopped "compromising."
And look where they are now.
They got where they are by doing exactly what I said: Stop fucking caving in and compromising on EVERYTHING. That is different from saying NEVER compromise, you know.
It would appear that in recent elections the voters want the candidate to stand up for what they believe in rather than what the candidate believes in.
You think that Massachusetts citizens became massively non-liberal after he died?
Seriously?
Or that maybe--just maybe--the Dem candidate was too modern Dem, instead of old-style Dem like Ted?
John Kerry has been one of the toughest campaigners in Massachusetts, and he fights like a tiger for that seat, often coming from behind.
Funny how he didn't fight so much in 2004--and lost.
Again, until voters quit choosing candidates purely on hot-button issues,
There are always "hot-button" issues. ALWAYS. Your job as a candidate from a particular party is to either use your influence to change the conversation to a topic more favorable to you (as long as the media is fair), or respond to it in a way that makes you look good. You cannot teach this skill to a politician, although it can be learned.
Whining about hot-button issues is ridiculous and unproductive.
And, by the way, the Dems have been losing hot-button issues lately because they tapdance around where they really stand, and let the Republican control the debate.
I don't see this happening. Care to name some elections where it has worked to the candidates advantage to diverge significantly from the prejudices of his constituents?
In Texas alone, there's been Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn and Ralph Yarborough. Lamar Smith represents parts of San Antonio and Austin today that definitely are out of lockstep with him, but Tom Delay made sure the 21st extended all the way down into Shavano Park and Alamo Heights, two of the wealthiest and most conservative suburbs of San Antonio. It has to cut through miles of neighborhoods on its way to Alamo Heights that have interests decidedly different from Smith's.
My district in San Antonio swings between a solid liberal like Ciro Rodriguez, and corporatist Republicans. It just depends on who can excite whose supporters the most, and that takes, OMG--Passion and standing up for what you believe!
Posted by: csreid
|
February 20, 2011 12:31 AM
If there's one thing the teabaggers have done right, it's be loud and have someone listen to them.
The politicians look around at their voters, and all they can see is a crowd of old white guys in scooters with signs that say "Get a Brain Morans" and "keep government hands of my medicare". I would venture a guess that those nutjobs are the most motivated group of voters, and so the politicians feel like they need to make them happy, and we just keep moving to the right (of course, there's no limit to how far we'll go. The democrats become conservatives, and the republicans become insane. Both groups keep shifting to the right while Fox keeps the right wing voters convinced that a liberal media exists and the democrats are commu-nazis, and the cycle repeats).
So, I think we neeed to have a group of loud, angry, true-far-left voters pushing uncompromisingly for government run health care, full rights for GLBT folk, unrestricted access to abortion, much more school/university funding, withdrawal of US forces everywhere before becoming a totally neutral nation and downsizing the military to a small protective force... and so on.
Hopefully, the dems would adopt that group the way the republicans adopted the teabaggers.
I think there is a base waiting to be activated, there. I went to DC for John Stewart's sanity rally. A lot of people (myself included) were there because there isn't a place progressives could go, so we settled for a comedian who probably votes democrat and makes fun of Fox news. I think if just a few of the elected democrats could be as loud and mean as Palin and Bachmann, we could at least slow the US's descent into madness.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmDjxCmyUeUa_AQdh57yC54-uphh2Phn_M
|
February 20, 2011 12:38 AM
"statesmanlike"...
Right. Because the last President we had that could truly be called a "statesman" was probably James Madison.
Posted by: dustycrickets
|
February 20, 2011 12:39 AM
Speaking of Christine O’Donnell.....Has anyone seen one of those .." I'm so homophobic .. I don't even touch myself . " bumper stickers yet.?
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 20, 2011 12:54 AM
Ray @168,
I've been out for a while so I don't want to intrude to much in the discussion. Part of me wonders though if something like the shock treatment of a Palin presidency in 2012 might do some good. I know it would be an unmitigated disaster perhaps equivalent to or even beyond Hoover. Unless it didn't get us in to a nuclear war as a byproduct. I know it would lead to a great deal of unnecesary and pointless suffering if it caused a total economic collapse. But it seems to me in many ways we're headed in that direction in our complete rejection of well tested Keynsian approaches to fixing economic problems along with a bunch of other stuff. Perhaps it would be like setting the reset button on our democracy. Perhaps the public at large would vomit up the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity's of the world once and for all because they would have a full fronted exposure of the complete bankrupcy and final implications of Friedman/libertarian/market fundamentalism combined with Christian craziness, and see that this isn't laughing matter to listen to on your way to church revivals. Again only part of me says this, perhaps the crazy part but I wonder.
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 20, 2011 12:56 AM
"BTW, do you want to know how many campaigns Al Frum has consulted on and not won?
It would shock you silly."
I think you're thinking of Bob Shrum and iirc, he worked on at least six campaigns starting in 1980 with Ted Kennedy's and ending in 2004 with the Kerry disaster.
...Then he wrote a book about his experiences called "No Excuses"
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
February 20, 2011 1:39 AM
@102, all4kindness2all:
So if that's true, then why not support 10 or 50 independents-against Democrats prone to endless compromises which contradict both their voters' best interests and their rhetoric?
Amphiox and others brought up the idea of a liberal or leftist tea party. At the same time, the tea party is willing to do precisely what Amphiox's logic prohibits: namely run candidates in accordance with their values (as repulsive as I find them) or to let candidates that go against their values actually fail against opposition. In fact, for liberals and leftists, this ought to be even more important, because we can't outspend conservatives.
In comparison, following Amphiox's approach, there will always be a Sarah Palin, a Bush Jr., or a Sharron Angle as an excuse for supporting the Democrats one more time, which turns into four more times, which eventually turns into decades with little progress for us as compared to the conservatives. With no means of exerting pressure the right, no matter how deranged and inhumane, will continue to set the agenda.
Why do you keep assuming I've seen this movie in the first place?
Posted by: Anri
|
February 20, 2011 4:07 AM
Ok, HTTB, I'll be your fluffer this once.
Um, no. In the real world, circumstances matter.
Also, mockery itself being OK does not automatically make all mockery, at all times, identically good, or useful, or well-placed.
As has been said about a hundred times in the two (most recent) women in atheism threads, it was not the use of the term 'female' per se. It was the use of the term 'female' as opposed to 'man', which seems asymmetric to a number of people. If using 'man', use 'woman'. If using 'male', use 'female'. It's really not hard to understand, but it might be uncomfortable.
Again, you are incorrect. Disagreeing with someone who condemns mockery is not the same as endorsing all mockery, in all situations.
I like my motorcycle. I do not like all motorcycles, everywhere, all the time. Is that contradictory?
I find my spouse attractive. I do not find all people, everywhere, attractive. Is that contradictory?
Iris, and PZ, approve of the mockery of bad ideas in the political landscape. They do not approve of all mockery, at all times, on all subjects, by all people.
I'm honestly not sure I can use smaller words to explain it to you, so if you still don't get it, you're on your own.
Posted by: jurroen
|
February 20, 2011 4:26 AM
“It makes other far-right Republican conservatives look moderate.”
I'm not american, and there's no way any right wing american politician can be made to look moderate.
Posted by: Numad
|
February 20, 2011 4:33 AM
I see Hieronymus is still lying (or is it a delusion?) about that poll he cited in that other thread endorsing explicitely his own point of view exactly. Very warped.
Hey, if someone who's not being "censored" complains about being "censored," doesn't it become justifiable to "censor" them?
Posted by: Numad
|
February 20, 2011 5:27 AM
And even if, somehow, the reason for the reluctance of all of these women to call themselves feminists when answering a poll were to be the exact transposition of the The Troll's stated reasons for not calling himself feminists, which isn't detailed by the poll and quite the enormous leap into wild fiction, the extreme relevance that The Troll would like us to attribute to the results would still remain a trumped up Argumentum ad populum.
But, really, the important thing is that it's a leap into bullshit on top of that. There's a lot of possible reasons why women might not self-identify as feminists while answering a poll, and there's no reason to believe that they all had the same one.
Let alone The Troll's simplistic bundle of clichés.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 20, 2011 8:27 AM
Aquaria,
You are speaking as if the entire problem is confined to the candidates and the consultants. I agree they are vile. However, they may unfortunately be representative.
You call for passion. Yes, that would be nice, but I haven't seen much forgiveness in the populace for passionate views that run counter to their own passions. Just try running as a candidate opposed to gun rights in a rural district, or as a gun-rights candidate in Baltimore.
And then there is the fact that the average voter is an idjit. More Americans believe in angels than in evolution. And the people are happy being ignorant--how else do you explain the popularity of Faux News.
The problem is that it is a very rare district where you have a progressive majority these days. You have to cobble together a coalition of diverse interest groups and not say anything that will keep them from coming out and voting for you. In part that is why you have so many damned consultants and why all candidates are so damned mealy-mouthed.
And the fact is that the American people tend to punish rather than reward bold progressives. Look at Viet Nam. The public was clambering for us to get the fuck out. Finally, a few courageous liberal souls stood up and did what the people wanted. Democrats were rewarded with 20 years in the wilderness as the party "soft on security". Do Democrats get rewarded for bening the party that passed Medicare and Medicaid? No, they're villified for laying their "gumming hands" on the teabaggers' Medicare. Hell look at Howard Dean. Do you think he was disqualified as a Presidential candidate because his voice cracked? No. People were just looking for an excuse to throw him under the bus.
You may be right that the Dems are irredeemable. Hell, it may be that the American people are irredeemable. However, all we will acheive by abandoning them for a third party is handing power to the loons on the Right.
If you are serious about a third party, it cannot start as a political party. There will be no reason for people to trust a party with no track record and little chance of winning.
Rather, I think you have to start as a social movement--that goes into inner city neighborhoods and distressed rural towns and tries to make things better. The success of Hezbollah and Hamas show this can work outside the US. I think it could work here.
If you can establish your bona fides by actually helping people--and maybe educating thema wee bit as well, then maybe you'll have sufficient credibility to win a few local offices, then maybe a few state offices and maybe eventually a national office or two.
In the mean time, I see two possibilities:
1)The Republicans mean catastrophe for the whole country--and especially for women, the poor and minorities
2)The Democrats, who are at least represent a slower unfolding of catastrophe and maybe a chance to stop the slide before we tumble into the abyss.
For me the choice is not between Democrat and Republican or between Democrat and third party. It's between the lesser of two evils and leaving the country.
Posted by: Utakata
|
February 20, 2011 8:57 AM
Hieronymus The Troll Braintree @ 186 replied:
If you want people to treat you like an adult in a debate, that is have an intelligent discourse without resorting to ad hominems and *censorship. Then you must inturn not troll and derail the thread, which is as equally heinous, that you are posting on. It's really that simple. Non?
*Note: The only one that can censor here is PZ himself. So I'm not sure where you are getting this from, since you are obviously allowed to post without any apparent moderation. Thus the only one that is controlling and editing of what your putting down currently is you and no one else.
Posted by: DrDaveExeter
|
February 20, 2011 9:07 AM
In the immortal words of East Anglia's finest cultural commentator:
"Fine words batter no parsons." - Sid Kipper
(www.sidkipper.co.uk)
Posted by: Lyr
|
February 20, 2011 10:25 AM
We definitely need more mockery of these stupid and crazy ideas.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 20, 2011 10:28 AM
Fun fact about GOP primary voters - 51% are birthers and 21% are agnostic birthers. And this is a serious political party? I know this comes as no surprise but it bares repeating- the base of the GOP are friggin idjuts. Another thing to add to the mock list.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html
"Birthers make a majority among those voters who say they're likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don't think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 20, 2011 10:34 AM
mikeyB #195
The law would be difficult to write and almost impossible to enforce. What is compensation? Does selling a $750,000 house to a person for "$1 and other valuable considerations" mean that person has just earned $749,999? How about stock options (a major form of upper management compensation)? There's also deferred payments and other means of compensation nowadays commonly used to lower tax liabilities. What if the CEO is working in New York for a minimal salary paid into his New York bank and a much larger salary paid into a Bahamian bank?
Sorry, mikeyB, it sounds like a good idea but it would be extremely difficult to make workable. Besides, the plutocracy would never let it become law.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 20, 2011 10:41 AM
Thanks Tis #212, it was one of those late night feverish ideas....the last point was the nail in the coffin, oh well
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 20, 2011 10:53 AM
MikeyB and 'Tis, it would seem to me that this is precisely what a truly graduated income tax is for--where "true" means without loopholes. As it now stands, the US has a regressive tax system--taking into account Social Security as well as income tax. Hell, you could probably fund both Social Security and Medicare merely by ending the phase-out of social Security at high income levels.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 20, 2011 10:54 AM
Tis + mikeyb - not only that, to get around the CEO salary cap they'd create a new position, Chief Executive Dickhead or whatever, promote the CEO to it, and pay him 400x the average worker salary.
Next, they'd promote a woman to the CEO slot, make her responsible for the most unpleasant executive work, and pay her only the 20x required by your proposed law.
Then, they'd get her a feature story with her face on the cover of Forbes, to show the world how progressive and gender-inclusive the company is.
Maybe I should go back to bed.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 20, 2011 10:59 AM
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 20, 2011 11:30 AM
Will go back and re-read the thread, but I wanted to post this gem which Stephen Jones wrote about the on-line effort to mock Scientology:
"A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of
those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it
pulled-up to the curb. Who would have thought such a tiny car could
contain so many infectious and revolutionary guffaws? Satires,
parodies, blue humor, pants to the ground ass-wavings, tea-dumping,
Modest Proposal submiting, 7 dirty word spewing, flag burning, frankly
impolite, just plain rude and improper expressions of ridicule have
either ignited reform, fanned the flames or kicked the corpse to make
sure it was dead."
Posted by: ibyea
|
February 20, 2011 12:56 PM
@ARID
In the case of the whole 60 votes necessary for the agenda, I think the Democrats should have yelled at the top of their voices what the Republicans were doing. Look at what happened when Jon Stewart raised the issue of health care for 9/11 rescuers and task force. The politicians immediately backpedaled. The thing is, I don't feel like the Democrats have been communicating to the public very well about what their agenda does or does not do. And I don't feel like the Democrats showed to the public what a bunch of assholes the Republicans were being by supporting certain bills. I still remember that anti rape bill for defense contractors by Al Franken and how a lot of Republicans shot it down. Did the Democrats tell anyone about it? If they did shout to the top of their lungs, and they still didn't get heard, then I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. But that didn't seem like the case.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
February 20, 2011 1:08 PM
Needs Moar spittle fleck
Posted by: Utakata
|
February 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Carlie @ 216 replying to me:
I get that all the time. And that's not because of censorship...more to do with that I am unlikely making any sense coupled with my lack of acedemics and nuances when I reply to anything here. But I have only myself to blame in that regards. :)
Though I suspect, it's more due to Hieronymus getting the attention he doesn't want. Again that's not censorship, that's peeps telling to STFU about his derailing troll habits. He is still free to type whatever he wants after the fact. No one is stopping him. /shrug
Posted by: Pacal
|
February 20, 2011 1:46 PM
Michael Lind is not worth taking seriously. Many years ago he wrote a book about the Vietnam war in which he declared that it was basically unwinable but it was still worth while. All about maintaining American "credibility".
This current piece of puff writing is also a bit much. His rather strained attempt to maintain that Bachmann is right in saying that the 3/5ths clause was some great victory against slavery. No it wasn't. As others have said also it was a cynical compromise. Although the audacity and gall of those who owned slaves and respresnted the main slave owning states is quite breathtaking. Under no circumstances did you want your "property" considered persons and given the same rights and responsibilities has persons, but when it comes to distribution of seats/power you want them considered persons so you can grap more power. In otherwords it was a cynical power grap.
UGH!
Posted by: UberAlles
|
February 20, 2011 2:00 PM
Looks like Americans are not the only ones whose dreams of the private job market's healthy return ( which would hopefully end this New Depression) is being put on standby.
Posted by: AJS
|
February 20, 2011 2:04 PM
Iris wrote:
That's a bloody good point. We of all people should remember that things don't have to be designed to look designed.Posted by: Randy
|
February 20, 2011 2:44 PM
@120 amphiox
Not a bad idea. Although I am not aware of any such effort to actually establish a party there is a movement afoot to build a more unified, more effective progressive liberal movement. I draw your attention to the Cognitive Policy Works (http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/), a Seattle-based think tank and consulting outfit. They have just released the Progressive Strategy Handbook. Anyone interested in the progressive liberal agenda should become familiar with this group.
Posted by: Iris
|
February 20, 2011 3:04 PM
AJS - Agency detection is a cognitive bias in all humans: virtually no one is exempt. It's just that some of us consider whether the existence of an assumed agency is actually supported by the evidence, or if Darwinian forces are a much better explanation for what we observe.
I'm firmly in the latter camp when it comes to the more heinous aspects of political conservatism in the U.S. But new evidence could, of course, change my view.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
February 20, 2011 3:20 PM
ibyea,
I think we are dealing with a lot of issues there. First, there is the fact that the Democrats still hold out the hope that their opponents are reasonable. They haven't yet realized that the Republicans will not be fully satisfied until they shove the last Dem into the oven and hear the satsifying clang of the metal door.
Then there is the fact that we no longer have a Press. Journalism is a dead profession. What passes for journalism now is an avenue to comfort rather than a medium to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. As such the new "journalists" are as likely to ally with the asshats as report objectively on their asshattery.
Then there is the fact that the American people hate their government so much they've made it impossible to do its job. Then when the government can't get the job done, they blame the government. We may have reached the state Ben Franklin prophesied--when the American people are to stupid and corrupt to govern themselves.
Posted by: ibyea
|
February 20, 2011 3:41 PM
@ARID
The thing is, how long until the Democrats realize that the Republicans won't cooperate? Obama is still talking about bipartisanship when the Republicans want to shoot everything down. Not only that, Obama is not telling people Republicans are shooting down bills they themselves have suggested in years part. He is not telling all the concessions the Democrats have made. He should have a list of every compromise he has ever made and just tell them to the public. Instead, they are content in just letting the media lie about how the Democrats are uncooperative. I can't believe how short the collective memory of this country is.
*goes hiding in a corner sad*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 20, 2011 4:19 PM
As soon as Democratic politicians stop trying to be Republican Lite then maybe* they'll start growing a backbone.
*But probably not.
Posted by: KG
|
February 20, 2011 4:45 PM
Great ending to a fine start to the guest post experiment! Currently, its mockers are one of the few strengths of the American "left", such as it is. I rather regret Al Franken's shift from satirist to Senator (that I have find myself using someone who supported the invasion of Iraq as an example of the "left" explains why I use scare-quotes).
I remember mockery (PrivateEye, That Was The Week That Was, Oz...) being one of the most valuable tools in loosening the hold of the old British establishment in the 1960s. Unfortunately, they have now largely regained it, Cameron's government being stuffed with the products of the most expensive private schools.
Posted by: Randy
|
February 20, 2011 4:46 PM
What dems need to do, what the entire liberal movement needs to do, is pay a helluva lot closer mind to the advice of George Lakoff and and the whole "science" of political psychology. Liberals are losing this political battle because we are willfully ignoring and/or failing to apply what the cognitive sciences are telling us about how the political mind works. Even the consultants ignore this stuff. And all the while the conservatives have become masters at these strategies. In addition, the liberal movement in this country is so incredibly short-sighted. In many ways liberals and the Democrats are like corporations who see only and plan only for the next quarter, while the whole damn economy slides into the abyss. We have to stop looking at just one election cycle at a time. We must build a progressive-liberal infrastructure that rivals that which the conservatives began constructing over thirty years ago. And now its in place and they are using it to whip the shit out of us. We must also begin to employ the knowledge about how the political mind works and frame the issues differently. One of the reasons we keep losing is that liberals, including the Democrats to whom some of you insist we give our complete or near complete allegiance, have allowed conservatives to frame the issues. Then the Democrats keep reinforcing the conservative viewpoint on these issues by using the very frames and metaphors the conservatives have fed to the American voter. Read Lakoff's The Political Mind. Wake up folks!
a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, Death's Wellness Consultant
Glad to find someone else who thinks this might be the way to go. I have been advocating this among my friends locally for several years now. Of course, this would not be an easy thing to pull off. I'm not sure there is enough disgust with our system currently to motivate widespread support for this. But certainly the constitution needs a great deal of reworking. There are many structural repairs to our system of governance that are needed. In addition, we need to update language of some of the rights language to more clearly articulate a broader set of liberties to meet the contingencies of 2010 and beyond. We spend way too much time haggling over what the "original intent" was of the founders. It doesn't matter. They aren't the one's who have to deal with the complexities of a world so foreign to the one they knew. Time to make the constitution a product of our time; to make it a more perfect constitution. I draw your attention to the book by the same title written several years ago by Larry Sabato. He makes some good suggestions. We need to start a national dialogue about this. Check out Sabato's website: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/
@193 a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, Death's Wellness Consultant
What kind of a human being are you? Insulting a person and ridiculing them is one thing. I'm all for it when necessary. For example you calling HTTP a "turd fondler." But to suggest even jokingly or as a rhetorical device that a person should die? This makes you appear sick and pathetic, neither of which I want to believe about you. By what system of ethics, values or principles are you guided that allows you to think such a statement acceptable? What moral philosophy is at the heart of your worldview that you would condone even the thought of this as a rhetorical tool? Comments like this deserve the harshest of condemnations. I want to believe that you are actually a much better person than this comment implies. I hope your followup reply will demonstrate my faith that this is so.
Posted by: KG
|
February 20, 2011 5:10 PM
I agree with Fred the Hun that it's a major blunder to describe the invasion of Iraq as "stupid". Certainly the Bush-Cheney Gang grossly underestimated the extent of resistance, but as Fred says, the invasion was motivated by quite rational considerations, from the point of view of the senior gang members; and the results include a clutch of military bases (which are not in the least likely to be given up when "US troops leave"), the Iraqi army US-trained, and dependent on US arms manufacturers for spares and upgrades; and the oil industry similarly dependent on US equipment and training, giving huge leverage over the economy. For all the talk of Iranian influence, it is the US that calls the shots in Iraq - literally. This position, together with its wider regional dominance, is now in peril from the Arabic Revolution - but that was not set off by the invasion and would almost certainly have happened anyway; and its leverage in Iraq gives the US business-political-military elite - whose interests Obama represents as much as Bush did - a considerably stronger regional position than it would otherwise have had. The strategy appears to be to see reforms instituted by elements of the old regime (even, I'd guess, in Libya), in such a way that all plausible candidates for power are if possible beholden to the US, or at worst can be constrained by a US-dependent army.
On the latest round of ARIDS (and Bill Dauphin, when here) versus Carlie, Aquaria and others on voting for the democrats or not - I sympathise with both sides. You're in a real bind, because of the two-party stranglehold and the tendency of the US system toward gridlock.
I think ARIDS may have something here; and maybe Arabs of a more sympathetic cast than Hezbollah and Hamas are now giving Americans and Europeans some lessons in political struggle?
Posted by: Petzl
|
August 24, 2011 3:35 AM
This Lind is clearly delusional. I think he gets off on Orwellian "freedom is slavery" logic. How is the Three-fifths Compromise possibly a "defeat"? The white South had millions of black slaves it needed to disenfranchise and it succeeded-- plus, it then stole 60% of their franchise for use by the whites. How is that not just a win, but a big win? What Lind is doing is demonstrating the logic of the Far Right: when the Right doesn't get 100% of what it demands, then it's a defeat. (Notice, like his Republican brethren, he couldn't even bear to use the word "compromise," referring to it as the Three-Fifths "clause.")Posted by: Captain Black
|
August 24, 2011 10:29 AM
Lind reads like a concern troll, which is exactly what he is.