Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Dealing with Obama Fatigue

Dealing with Obama Fatigue

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

For months, formerly enthusiastic supporters of Barack Obama have sought to assuage their disappointment by means of deft explanation.  The truth is that no compelling explanation or description for Obama’s numerous successes and failures in office has yet been proposed and adopted wholesale.  The narrative and trajectory of the Obama administration remains a mystery.  Evident with both critics and apologetics alike, those who seek to make sense of it all have consistently tried and failed. 

Salon columnist David Sirota has recently set forth an interesting rationale to explain this apparent executive branch inertia or timidity.  In short, to Sirota, Obama is far more powerful than we even imagine, but he’s miles away from a liberal.  The basic premise I agree with in general sentiment.  During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Obama was often castigated by the left for being too much of a moderate.  It is probably worthwhile to remind those of us  who voted for him that we saw in him exclusively what we wanted to see.  Whether it is a movie star, a musician, or an actor, we routinely project our hopes and aspirations upon those who inspire us deeply.  And it is, in part, the residual aspects of those views that would have us look for explanations based exclusively on our own terms.

Sirota is not especially kind to disappointed progressives, even calling them “narcissistic” for believing that the presidency is theirs and theirs alone.  As one such frustrated progressive, I take no small liberty with this perspective.  The last liberal president was arguably Lyndon Johnson, but his legacy is forever tainted by the guns aspect of Vietnam than the butter of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Great Society reforms.  In other words, it’s been a long time for us.  Democratic presidents since then have been centrists and more inclined to posture to the left than to advance a truly progressive agenda.  Many of us thought that this was finally our turn and we should be forgiven for making an incorrect assumption.

The article’s main idea is that Obama has been a thoroughly powerful shill for the status quo and the special interests.  These disgruntled rumblings have been frequently detected within the Democratic base.  However, I should note that they are yet another bit of unproven folk wisdom put forward as truth when real, substantive answers are few and far between.  I must admit that Obama’s been willing to form alliances with money and big business when it suited him politically, but I sense the president has believed that these actions are necessary evils. 

Is it even possible in the United States to be both a successful politician and an ideological purist?  We see evidence of the latter in the Tea Party, but I will be shocked if any Tea Party darling wins the Republican nomination in a year’s time.  I will be even more shocked if one of these candidates defeats a candidate who will almost certainly be an incumbent president.

The author makes a series of odd arguments and criticisms, culminating in Obama’s willingness to speak favorably of some of the policies of Ronald Reagan.  Despite being a popular two-term president in the eyes of most Americans, Reagan is still persona non grata in progressive circles, for many justified reasons.  The attitude also stems from simple resentment.  Reagan’s policies sought to invalidate many liberal sacred cows and the invocation of that very name alone is enough to invoke consternation. 

The truth of the matter is that President Obama may very well prove impossible to pigeonhole.  Weak or strong, sufficient characterization ultimately doesn’t matter, though it would guide our comprehension and understanding.  But I do find it interesting to contemplate how nearly one whole term has passed, and our president still remains a mystery to his supporters and his detractors all.  The race to build the perfect Obama analogy continues.            

Powered by

About cabaretic

  • Jason

    “Democratic Presidents since then have been Centrists and more inclined to posture to the Left than to advance a truly Progressive agenda.”
    I think it is called “continuity of government” which means that nothing ever changes no matter who gets elected. The left and socialism etc. are not liberal in any sense of the word.

  • http://www.cabaretic.blogspot.com Kevin

    That’s certainly one way to look at it, sure, but if we get too cynical about government, then nothing will ever get fixed.

  • Whocares

    Obama is “hard to pigeonhole” because he stands for nothing and for everything at the same time. Be serious, he is the least qualified President in the past 70 years (probably longer). Any many who thinks that we have 57 States, that thinks that Austrians “speak Austrian,” and who cannot pronounce the word “corpseman” is not a genius – quite the contray. What was it that Hillary said, “what are we going to do, elect him (BHO) because he gives a pretty speech” – yup, this guy is in way over his head.

  • Arch Conservative

    Not only is he the least competent but he’s also the most arrogant. he makes it easy for so many to utterly despise him on a personal level.

    When Sean Penn said what he said about Reagan, that his getting Alzheimer’s was karma, I thought it was a horrible thing to say about a person. Now that I’ve been made to witness Barry Sotero in action, I get it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    I’ve learned over the years that one can usually tell who’s arrogant if that person refuses to apologize for what he did wrong.

    For instance, Obama’s publicly apologized a few times – he’s not afraid to admit when he did something stupid.

    Compare that to, say, Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot somebody in the face and has yet to apologize for it.

    But given that it’s Obama that we’re talking about, I realize that if you say something bad about Obama, it must therefore be true because he’s Obama and he’s a liberal and anything bad said about a liberal must be true.

    Come to think of it, that’s the same kind of accusation Roger throws at me concerning conservatives…but unlike you, Arch, I’ve complimented conservatives on several occasions and even written a couple articles pointing out what they did right.

    So that begs the question – are you able to sincerely state (without any sarcasm) things that you believe that liberals or Democratic presidents did right? Or is it liberals bad, all the time, without exception?

  • Arch Conservative

    I think requiring to insurance companies to cover birth control is a pretty good thing.

    But that’s small potatoes. On the big, important things, Obama is nothing but wrong. The Demcorats are nothing but wrong.

    Perhaps you can tell me how it is that people can take seriously the Decomrats’ pledges of government spending as a panacea for our national and social ills when the government spends more and more every year but year in and year out we see the same old problems, with no relief whatsoever. Being that Seth Rogen, I mean cabaretic brought up LBJ, a glaring example of this comes to mind. In 1964 LBJ declared war on poverty and the great society was born. Many years and trillions of dollars dollars spent later, the poverty rate is higher today than when LBJ was in office.

  • Baronius

    I think Arch is pretty close. Barack Obama was raised by an anthropologist mother. He doesn’t commit to anything. He pictures himself standing above every debate, analyzing both sides. His training in law also contributes to this instinct. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have enough self-awareness to question his own assumptions.

    So, when he steps in to resolve a dispute between the Republicans and Democrats, he engages in analysis that he thinks is neutral. His analysis of the Republicans is that they are motivated by greed, which is a perfectly common human instinct. His analysis of the Democrats is that they’re motivated by love of humanity, but sometimes lose sight of the big picture. That’s why he can step in and oversee a better deal than the Democrats can come up with without him.

    It doesn’t occur to him that he could be wrong. He’s never been challenged on a confirmable point his entire life: academia, law, politics, and community activism aren’t falsifiable endeavors. He’s never experienced a klong, that moment when you realize that you’re undeniably wrong. The only things he’s ever had to overcome are his skin color and his lack of a father; he’s never had to bounce back from personal failure. He really thinks that everything that’s gone wrong in the last 30 months is Bush’s fault, because if that’s not true, then something would be his fault.

    Now, I always warn against psychoanalyzing your political opponents, because you risk of responding to their perceived neuroses rather than their arguments. So take my comments with a grain of salt. I only know that I seem to have less trouble understanding President Obama’s actions than a lot of liberals do.

  • zingzing

    “I only know that I seem to have less trouble understanding President Obama’s actions than a lot of liberals do.”

    from your point of view.

  • zingzing

    really, baronius, that reading is so slanted and simplistic (and wrong–he’s lost an election), i don’t know what you were thinking… or if you were thinking at all.

  • Baronius

    Well, Zing, I’m not writing articles about how tough it is to understand President Obama, and I haven’t been thrown by some of the things that seem to confuse Sirota and others.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #2

    But Kevin, haven’t you intimated in one of your comments on the previous thread that we can’t really depend on the government to get things done, that if you want something done, do it yourself?

    I believe Anarcissie closed that comment thread with what I consider an incisive remark. Yet, I don’t remember anyone picking up the ball and running with it.

  • Arch Conservative

    There’s not all that much there that’s too tough to understand.

    He’s a thin-skinned, narcissistic, dickhead who is terrible for the economy and the nation in general.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    So if the government does something poorly, then it can’t do anything right?

    No, that’s not what you mean – of course it’s not. But that’s the attitude of many of your fellow anybody-but-liberals. Furthermore, can we really depend on the free market to, say, regulate food safety or auto safety or airline safety? I think that even you would agree that we cannot trust the free market to do so.

    In other words, we need to stop running with the talking point about how poorly the government does this or that, or how government workers are somehow leeches – witness the air safety inspectors who kept working even though they weren’t getting paid, and traveling to keep on schedule at their own expense…and I haven’t seen anything showing they’d get reimbursed.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    Being that Seth Rogen, I mean cabaretic brought up LBJ, a glaring example of this comes to mind. In 1964 LBJ declared war on poverty and the great society was born. Many years and trillions of dollars dollars spent later, the poverty rate is higher today than when LBJ was in office.

    If LBJ and his ‘Great Society’ were so bad, then explain why it is that the poverty rate was 22% when Ike was in office, but from the time Welfare and Medicaid took effect until the Great Recession, the poverty rate hovered between 10 and 15 percent.

    Hm?

    But wait, I must remember that everything that the Democrats and liberals do is badbadbadevilevilevilbadbadbad. Keep up the good work of being the tool of Big Business, Arch!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Arch a tool of Big Business?

    Tell him, Arch. Straighten that man out.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And so are you, Roger.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    The only things [Obama]’s ever had to overcome are his skin color and his lack of a father; he’s never had to bounce back from personal failure.

    Riiiiiight. I grew up without a dad, and it ain’t easy…but a few years of his childhood were in a third-world country where he couldn’t identify with anyone and didn’t speak the language, with a stepdad not of either of his races…and while I didn’t face these particular challenges, I do have a REAL good idea of what he went through since my youngest son is in a third-world country where he doesn’t speak the native tongue and he sticks out like a sore thumb since he looks much more white than Filipino, and it ain’t easy for him, either. And then there was Obama’s battle with drugs.

    Baronius, just once couldja try walking in someone else’s shoes before you judge them?

  • zingzing

    baronius: “Well, Zing, I’m not writing articles about how tough it is to understand President Obama, and I haven’t been thrown by some of the things that seem to confuse Sirota and others.”

    you also wrote something incredibly simple-minded and ridiculous. at the best, it’s patronizing. at the worst, it seems the work of a fool.

  • Cannonshop

    #18 but the fool’s analysis FITS the phenomena, while your wise men keep being baffled by it.

    For instance, B.O.’s Administration commonly blames his immediate predecessor for everything that goes wrong-that’s not hyperbole, it’s a fact…yet his solutions to foreign policy and domestic economic policy questions inevitably read “What Bush did, but Bigger, and BIGGER, and maybe we’ll let the French run one of the new operations, and why won’t you people let me raise taxes?”

    I mean, people were PISSED about the AIG bailout, then Obie comes along, and does it even BIGGER, less than four months into his first term. We’ve had a Surge in Af’Stan under Obie, plus two new and exciting fronts opened up in a war that is increasingly becoming a war with the Islamic World, rather than any specific enemy, and lack of reporting on happenings at GitMo doesn’t mean that business there has changed materially in the last three years-it just means you’re not HEARING about it.

    Baronius’ analysis fits Obama’s actions in office better and better with each marker that comes up.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #7 may be wrong in more ways than one, if may be off the mark, more importantly, it may be an account/explanation may people might vehemently disagree with, but it’s certainly anything but “incredibly simple-minded and ridiculous … or the work of a fool.” And it’s certainly not patronizing … especially since it’s coming from Baronius who rarely if ever can be accused of this fault, even and especially with regard to the President.

    So quite characteristically, rather than dealing with an account he disagrees with, Mr.Zkng shoots down the messenger.

    Which makes one wonder, which party to this dispute comes across as incredibly simple-minded, patronizing, or (at worst) a fool?

  • zingzing

    “#18 but the fool’s analysis FITS the phenomena, while your wise men keep being baffled by it.”

    but it’s not anywhere near the truth. it’s just some silly nonsense. how does baronius know what goes on in his head? and how does he know what obama has gone through in his life? how does he presume to know? and that bit on self-awareness… come on. it’s junk, and you know it.

    and you as well make large stretches and forget a lot of things when you simplify what has happened. the world is complicated. i’m sure you don’t think things can be summed up the way you have done. that’s called being a hack.

  • zingzing

    So quite characteristically, rather than dealing with an account he disagrees with, Mr. roger shoots down the messenger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In fact, I find it very interesting, if not ingenious, Cannon. Baronius should of course owe up to the possibility that he may in fact be relating this account second-hand, if he’s doing so. Otherwise, he should take full credit for a very insightful account.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Won’t work this time round, zing. Used your own words directed at Baronius and put them in the form of a question.

    Your own words, directed at another person under these very specific circumstances, condemn you. I only acted as a court steno.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How doe3 Mr. Zing know what’s in Obama’s heart and mind, other than saying that Baronius doesn’t? At least Baronius offered a plausible account as to how he, Baronius, understands the man. It may not be a true account in many respects, it may be true in some others. But Mr. Zing didn’t offer us any alternative account or way of understanding the President as a person.. But simply because he dislikes Baronius’s account, he calls it simple-minded and a work of a fool. Again, amazing since he’s got no alternative to offer as of this writing.

  • zingzing

    sorry, roger. baronius’ account was nothing but conjecture from a know-nothing. and that’s what it looked like. look at baronius’ words: according to obama, the republicans are greedy (simple), the dems are angels (simple); obama has no self-awareness (unknown), he’s never had to say he’s wrong (wrong), he’s never had to overcome anything other than daddy issues (wrong), he grandstands on everything (wrong), and everything is bush’s fault in obama’s eyes (wrong).

    that’s a one-sided bunch of shit that doesn’t deal in anything but baronius’ view of the situation. it has nothing to do with obama other than that obama is president and baronius doesn’t like him.

    i would think that a discerning person like yourself could see beyond partisan hackery and see that it’s a complete bit of shit as analysis. if you’re worldview says things are as simple as that, you need to fucking get your eyes checked out. then again, i think you do. it’s too dark in the basement.

  • zingzing

    alright, i regret that last sentence. i was pushed.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good night, zing. Sleep on it. I’ll take your questions tomorrow.

  • zingzing

    do you want me to make up some bullshit? i don’t know obama’s “heart and mind” any better than baronius, but i know shit when i see it.

    i don’t think he stands above debate. in my mind, he seems to have been rather pragmatic. maybe he’s come around too late in some cases, but he’s helped settle debates and, even if i’m not 100% satisfied with the results, this is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

    he’s stated goals in the wars that go against the military’s wishes. the drop in troop levels may be foolish, according to the military. but iraq has been rather quiet lately, hasn’t it? afghanistan blew up yesterday, but that one’s been a quagmire since day one, and i bet none of you could figure a way out either. no one ever has.

    you look at what obama’s up against: a bunch of willful tp children, who even the gop is growing sick of. bush had dem cows.

    it’s like arguing against someone who twists your words and leaves out very important phrases and acts like they’re better than anyone, just to score political points against someone they despise because they’ll hope you’ll go away. fuck that asshole.

  • zingzing

    “I’ll take your questions tomorrow.”

    seriously? the ones i asked on the other thread?

  • zingzing

    you know what, roger, since you’re so keen on baronius’ psychoanalysis of someone he doesn’t know, i’ll do a bit of psychoanalysis of someone i know a little bit better than baronius knows obama. it’ll be on you. strictly from a political angle. i won’t pretend to know everything, as baronius does.

    you view the world like it was the star wars saga. if you go back to the prequels, you’ll know that the empire wasn’t always “the evil empire,” but just a political body at some point. that’s where we sit now. but you view it as if the evil empire was in full force, and if you’re not against the evil empire, you’re for it. all those that are not part of the rebellion are part of the evil empire. thus, the evil empire must be destroyed, even if there are plenty of people seeking to thwart the advent of the evil empire already within it.

    there. that’s the simplistic version of you that mirrors the simplistic version of obama baronius gave which you loved so much.

    how does it look to you? stupid? yep. do you live in a future world? yes, you do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius’s view may be one-sided but that doesn’t make it simplistic. Obama is a lawyer by trade, he thinks like a lawyer, hadn’t had many job experiences when he did not function like a lawyer. It is therefore more than reasonable to assume, looking at his last two years in office, that being, thinking and acting a lawyer comes all too naturally to him, that that’s his main model. It is a very reasonable assumption. Engineers, by virtue of their trade and or aptitude, happen to be thinking like engineers, mathematicians like mathematicians, lawyers like lawyers. So if there is a limitation to any of these POVs, these are understandable limitations, and you shouldn’t be haranguing Baronius for coming out with a naturalistic, commonsensical explanation, even if it’s not all that original. If anything, blame Obama.

  • Baronius

    Certainly the President’s phrasing is different from his predecessors’. It’s not lawyerly as an advocate; it’s lawyerly like an analyst. That’s why I think it relates to anthropology. When asked about American exceptionalism, he says that he believes in it the same as a Greek believes in Greek exceptionalism. When talking about Christianity, he talks about settling in at his church and being baptized, but never tells a conversion story. He writes about his upbringing but his accounts of his grandparents and mother lack passion. If a man doesn’t show an emotional attachment for his God, country, or family, it’s fair to say that he is (or presents as) a coolheaded fellow.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    To continue along zing’s lines, you’re making the SAME kind of simplistic mistake in #32 by pigeonholing careers to personal psychologies. You cannot use broad-brush statements like that to make judgments about an individual.

    How do I know this? I spent twenty years with a rating of “Machinist’s Mate” in the Navy, which means that I’m supposed to know what the heck I’m doing when it comes to engineering. While I could operate and maintain machinery well, I was never the expert on it that someone with my experience was expected to be. Why? Because I am not a natural engineer – never was, never will be, which is why as time went on I always wound up in assignments that better fit my nature as a paper-pusher since I’m pretty good with the written word when I really want to be.

    So AGAIN, it’s flat wrong to use your broad-brush assumption to pigeonhole an individual psychology. Not that you’ll admit your error….

    Now go back to Obama – what does a lawyer normally do when he first passes the bar exam when he’s got not only a Harvard degree but also was president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review? Normally he’d go straight to a high-powered law firm to earn the Really Big Bucks and start networking with the High and the Mighty. But Obama didn’t do that, did he? Instead, he followed his path of support for the little guy because he was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

    FYI, Roger, in the world of lawyers I suspect you’ll find that someone with Obama’s qualifications could have made FAR more money and FAR more powerful connections as a corporate lawyer than as a lowly civil rights lawyer. But that’s not the path he chose. He chose to help and to teach.

    And I clearly remember Dave Nalle’s reactions to this, which went something along the lines of “see, that was all part of his secret plan, see, and he was just using all that to build his political base for his rise to power, see!”

    There comes a time that you need to get off your cynicism shtick. There times to be cynical…and the obvious converse of that statement is that there are times to NOT be cynical.

    Lastly, Roger, here’s a tool that’s served me well over the years. One of the lessons I learned in my time in Freemasonry was that most men really try to do what they think is the right thing…meaning that it’s not wise to use cynicism as your first option. Take the statements and evidence at face value and see how they fit, and then apply the cynical streetwise POV and see how that fits. The better fit is more likely – but not always – the real story.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Glenn, I really do not care discussing the subject anymore. I said to zing all I wanted to say, all I felt needed to be said, and I consider this matter as closed.

    Thank you for your input, though, and your words of advice.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    But Roger: you actually never said anything. You just batted other people’s comments around. The matter may be “closed,” but not because you actually participated in anything that could be called a conversation or a discussion.

    Zing has written paragraph after paragraph of interesting, logical argument. You have written mostly insults. To what purpose?

  • Cannonshop

    I kind of find it impossible not to laugh, though- both Zing, and Glenn feel the need to Defend Obama from the accusation that his approach reflects lawyerly thinking with a dash of Anthropologist…

    As if that’s a bad thing.

    Merely because Baronius said it.

    Which kind of reflects on THEIR thinking.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    My gist of my comments on this thread pertained to Baronius’s account/explanation of Obama and zing’s unfair characterization of Baronius’s account as simpleminded and the words of a fool If anyone insulted anyone here, it was zing who insulted Baronius, not I who insulted zing but pointing it out to zing. If you fail to see that, then either you’re blind with prejudice or disingenuous.

    And yes, I can consider the subject matter as closed insofar as I am concerned, given the limited objective I had in mind, which I stated clearly enough in my remark to Glenn.

    You really need to improve your reading comprehension, Handy, or at least try to stay above the fray and be taking sides as you’re all too often prone to do, before blathering nonsense. It really does you discredit and has the undesirable effect of making me ignore your comments even when they’re intelligent simply because they issue from Handy.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Any comment that begins “I think Arch is pretty close” [Baronius’s notorious #7] is going to raise plenty of suspicion right off the bat.

    The crux of Baronius’s argument is that Obama cannot imagine himself being mistaken. But whether this is literally true or not [it’s not really subject to proof], can you name any other politicians who have made a habit of admitting they are wrong?

    Obama’s “On the one hand….On the other hand” style drives many liberals nuts. He is not a firebrand ideologue or polemicist. I actually think it’s a strength — but it’s not a guarantee that a deeply sick economy will turn around any faster.

    As for “always blaming Bush,” the fact that the economy was in free fall and debt was steeply rising before Obama was inaugurated is not exactly irrelevant. He has not tended to say “Bush” but instead “we inherited this situation.” It’s other Dems who use Bush as a demonic totem.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You know, Cannon, I’m beginning to see why liberals are viewed as intolerable. If our illustrious trio here on BC, Handy, Glenn and Zing, is a representative sample, then I must concur with the general opinion.

    The only reason I re-enter the BC political dialog is that I wanted to introduce a different perspective, but I’m surely beginning to regret it. These people are so steeped in their beliefs and yes, their prejudices, that there is simply no discussing anything with them. Unless you’re in perfect agreement with them on virtually every subject matter under the sun, they will attack you like a pack of mad dogs. It verges on religion, for chrissake.

    Haven’t run across such closed minds, minds resistant to thinking, in a very long time. And it’s a group-think, to make matters infinitely worst.

    I’m done with them for a long lone time.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Where Obama has failed so far is in giving people confidence. Quite apart from their policies, which actually were a mixed bag in terms of success, FDR and Reagan managed to gravitationally affect the national psyche — they stirred optimism in the public. [In Reagan’s case, it did take 3 years.]

    Obama’s policies could be the best possible under horrendous circumstances [as some of us believe they are], but that inability to instill patience and fortitude [and, yes, hope] may in fact be more important.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    It takes two to fight. Most of the ‘attacks’ Roger refers to were in fact responses to his very personal invective. If everyone would stick mostly to ideas and facts, there would be more light and less heat generated around here. I’m as guilty as anyone of reacting emotionally in the moment, but I won’t pretend those are my proudest accomplishments.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wasn’t addressing Arch’s comment, Handy, nor was I prejudiced by that remark of Baronius when it came to his subject remark giving an account/explanation of Obama as thinking and acting like an attorney. Everyone’s wrong on some things, right on others, but the former doesn’t negate the latter. If it does for you, that’s your problem, but don’t saddle me with it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Again, you’re missing the point. Obama’s policies and leadership qualities were never addressed by Baronius’s account. It is you who bring these matters to the table for the express purpose of diverting the discussion away from the subject matter.

    And once again, I haven’t thrown any insults at zing, only rephrased zing’s own words to Baronius in the form of a question. It was zing who tried to insult Baronius and I merely turned the tables on zing. But since you’re too blind to see that, have it your way, but please respect my wishes and don’t address me on this subject anymore.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    My #39 was a general comment about Baronius’s contentious #7. It was not aimed at any individual. #41 was a general comment about the subject matter of this article. Again, not “aimed” at anyone — other than anyone who wants to talk about it.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    The difference between your and Obie’s career experiences is that yours was chosen for you by the Navy, while Obama picked his. The military is notorious for miscasting recruits in jobs for which they have little or no enthusiasm or aptitude. One has to assume that Obama chose the law because of his interest in the discipline, because if that’s not the case he’s even more screwed up than some of us already think he is.

    Baronius’ analysis is based on real events plus choices made by Obama which are a matter of record; I doubt he’s far off the mark, your experience in the navy notwithstanding.

  • Cannonshop

    #40 I think you might’ve spiked it right there, Roger, but I might hypothesize that collective focus leads to collective thinking-thus kind of generating a sort of tribal reaction whereupon right and wrong become a matter of Side, thus someone on the opposite side MUST be wrong-regardless of what they’re saying.

    which makes it hilarious-the champions of “Tolerance” become so intolerant that they can’t separate a neutral speculation from an attack.

    It would be sad, but instead it’s funny-kind of like an old Monty Python skit.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “I kind of find it impossible not to laugh, though- both Zing, and Glenn feel the need to Defend Obama from the accusation that his approach reflects lawyerly thinking with a dash of Anthropologist…”

    that’s not what needed defending. but you know that.

  • zingzing

    roger: “It was zing who tried to insult Baronius.”

    i certainly didn’t make it personal. i attacked his words, not his character. if you’ll look again at the “fool” comment, you’ll not a certain phrase you’re conveniently forgetting. natch.

  • zingzing

    “I might hypothesize that collective focus leads to collective thinking-thus kind of generating a sort of tribal reaction whereupon right and wrong become a matter of Side, thus someone on the opposite side MUST be wrong-regardless of what they’re saying.”

    wow. remind you of any particular group’s reaction to any particular person?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Handy attacks Baronious for attributing to him dishonorable motives, that he came up with his narrative for the sole reason that he dislikes the President. Glenn accuses Archie and me for being a tool of Big Business. Archie record and mine are quite clear in this respect, but Glenn is so overtaken by the liberal’s passion that he’ll resort to nonsense whenever you disagree with him. You, too, jump on Baronius’s quite commonsensical account even though there is nothing disparaging about Obama in the account he presents. You simply assume that Baronius is acting dishonorably for no other reason that he’s a conservative. If you paid closer attention, you would have been aware of the fact that Baronius has been very tactful when addressing this president. He respects the US Constitution and the office of the presidency, which is more than I can say for myself. Your gross characterization of Baronius and of his words is simply unfair.

    In any case, that’s enough for me to recognize a pattern.

  • Cannonshop

    #50 um…yours to me? or yours to Baronius? or…hmmm…how ’bout your reaction to everything Arch posts?

    I’m just pointing out the evidence, here. How ’bout this one:

    Administration says 117,000 jobs created. Go into the report, and it turns out that in the same time period, 193,000 people left the job market. Now, to me, that’s an interesting set of numbers, because 193,000>117,000 which indicates (oh, let me do the math… a negative job creation number of 76,000.

    but employment went up,right?

    Okay, now, by posting that, I’m sure to attract a storm of hostility from the Liberals on the site, since it’s something that makes the Administration look kind of foolish for saying the jobs picture’s improved.

    Therefore, per the Liberal ideology, I must be wrong-even though the numbers came from THEIR SOURCE.

    How does this relate?

    Baronius noted that Barry O’s mom was an Anthropologist, and his education was in Law-but not courtroom law-which is based on Barry O’s own biographical info. He speculates that this informs Mr. Obama’s decisionmaking as POTUS. Tracking so far?

    Okay, He extends his hypothesis based on Mr. Obama’s prior experience (such as it was) in career moves:

    College graduate/Law degree
    Community organizer
    12 Years as a Prof at the U of Chicago (one published item-an Autobiography),
    State Legislator (voted ‘present’ on tough bills, only co-sponsorship, no drafting of legislation as primary sponsor)
    Federal Legislator (U.S. Senate, not a full term, no authored legislation, co-sponsorship on easy bills to pass.)

    Baronius speculates that Obama operates in “analyst” mode, and presumes one-sidedly.

    What’s the problem? So far, it’s not an attack, certainly not enough of one to merit derailing the thread to defend the man in the white-house over…

    Unless, that is, you see a problem with it-in which case, the problem doesn’t seem to be with the objective statements-most of which are based on Obama’s OWN words, but rather, it’s because the person making the observation is known to dislike Barack Obama.

    And that’s your real issue.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Compare that to, say, Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot somebody in the face and has yet to apologize for it.

    Oh, no, Glenn. It was even better than that.

    The poor guy went on television and apologized to him.

  • Cannonshop

    #53 Dick Cheney-poster boy for why you don’t go hunting with D.C. insiders, something about the District of Columbia and maybe access to political power makes for irresponsible idiots, and the sycophants who forgive them.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Arch: In 1964 LBJ declared war on poverty and the great society was born. Many years and trillions of dollars dollars spent later, the poverty rate is higher today than when LBJ was in office.

    Not even close to true, Arch, even with an echo. Since LJB introduced his “Great Society”, the poverty rate has fallen for all demographic groups and fallen very significantly for many of them. Check out Politifact’s analysis.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Now you know better than to present silly little things like FACTS to Arch – his eyes just glaze over during the reading process and all he sees in your comment instead is:

    “LBJ introduced…Great Society…poverty…for all. Check out Politifact’s analysis.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Does your source address the recent Census Bureau stats concerning the recent hit by the African-Americans and other people of color in terms of income and assets (as opposed to the “whites”)? Does it take into account the foreclosure rates and the inflation of the dollar?

    Mind you, you haven’t seen me bitching about LBJ’s Great Society concept. But seriously, considering the hits we’ve been taking in the past three or four years since the Wall Street debacle, are we really better off today than in the sixties?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Roger @ #40:

    I’m done with [Handy, Glenn and zing] for a long lone time.

    Two comments and 31 long lone minutes later:

    I wasn’t addressing Arch’s comment, Handy…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Does your source address the recent Census Bureau stats concerning the recent hit by the African-Americans and other people of color in terms of income and assets (as opposed to the “whites”)? Does it take into account the foreclosure rates and the inflation of the dollar?

    Should it?

    Arch is basically claiming that LBJ’s Great Society initiatives have had no net effect, or even a negative one. That simply isn’t true, in spite of what may have happened in the last 10 minutes.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But you’re conveniently bracketing Archie’s comment, however less than accurate, by (deliberately?) ignoring the larger picture. Archie was wrong on the specific point you’re attributing to him to be making, but he’s more right than you are when it comes to where we are right now and where we’re going.

    At the very least, it’s not an honorable reading of Archie. It portrays him as a blubbering idiot.

    And BTW, thanks for reminding me of my inconsistency, I was acting on the spur of the moment. But truly, not many can measure up to your standard of perfection. I therefore stand corrected.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #60, second paragraph — should be “charitable reading …”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Archie was wrong on the specific point you’re attributing to him to be making, but he’s more right than you are when it comes to where we are right now and where we’re going.

    LBJ’s policies have little or nothing to do with the current economic situation.

    Imagine a team of firefighters spends 12 hours putting out a warehouse fire, and then you say their actions had no effect on the fire because an arsonist came along half an hour after they’d left the scene and started it up again.

    That’s how much sense your point makes.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    For the record: I was not objecting to the Baronian “analysis” [a high falutin’ word for a partisan snippet] that Obama thinks and behaves like a lawyer. Neither, I suspect, were zing or Glenn. I mean, Obama is a lawyer.

    What I object to is this, which is not analysis, just dubious assertion and conclusion:

    – he doesn’t have enough self-awareness to question his own assumptions

    – It doesn’t occur to him that he could be wrong

    – He really thinks that everything that’s gone wrong in the last 30 months is Bush’s fault, because if that’s not true, then something would be his fault.

    Beyond the fact that these ‘analytical’ bullet points could apply to most comments made on Blogcritics, whether by Baronius, myself, or Dave Nalle, they could apply to almost any politician, any time. Please cite for me a couple of exceptions: politicians you admire because they admit they are wrong.

    Also the comment by Arch which Baronius described as “pretty close” was
    “Not only is he the least competent but he’s also the most arrogant. he makes it easy for so many to utterly despise him on a personal level.”

    And all this is described by Cannon as “neutral speculation” and by Clavos as “real events” and “a matter of record.”

    So it’s not that he thinks like a lawyer [or an anthropologist] that we find to be an objectionable conclusion. It’s that he’s arrogant, incompetent, and incapable of comprehending that he is wrong. Can you imagine Baronius writing such an “analysis” of any right-winger?

  • Baronius

    MICHELE BACHMANN!

  • Baronius

    I should add that most of the criticism I’ve seen of her is silly, and I haven’t researched her much, but she really doesn’t come across as a great thinker.

  • zingzing

    roger: “You simply assume that Baronius is acting dishonorably for no other reason that he’s a conservative.”

    no, but you assume that i do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    My point is that your point is not relevant considering the larger scheme of things. So you can be pedantic to a fault critiquing Archie for what may or may not be his actual meaning, but Archie is addressing the mess we’re in. And because of that, he’s got more guts than you’ll ever have, in spite of your logic.

    In short, I can understand Archie’s frustration with the situation we’re in, and forgive him some of his inaccuracies. You, on the other hand, are so full of yourself that the only thing you’re capable of is critiquing Archie for his obvious misstatement.

    And guess what? I’ll take Archie over you and your quest for perfection anytime, in a foxhole or without.

  • zingzing

    so archie was completely wrong, but his heart’s in the right place and therefore, he is right. LOGIC!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Eh, facts — a dime a dozen. But great thinkers like Arch — rare and priceless.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    O’m out of this thread. Apologies to all.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    My opinion of Archie has changed since I first encountered him at BC. I used to think he was just an opinionated hard-right buffoon, but I have developed a lot of respect for him, in spite of the fact that I disagree with him most (=99%) of the time. He sticks to his principles, always says what he thinks and says it plainly, even if he often doesn’t do so in the most, ahem, elegant way or it might not be the most popular opinion to have.

    I’ve never known him to be dishonest on these threads. But a lot of the time he is just plain wrong, and he should be called on it when he is.

  • zingzing

    archie’s wrong when archie’s wrong. roger’s an ___ all the time. since he is an ___ all the time, i’d like to ____ his ___ in the ____ as much as humanly possible until he bleeds out his ________ and it explodes into a _______ of bodily imperatives and is then sucked into a sump____ and then _____ out the ____ of the _____ you get the picture. ____that mother______in the___, but only until __ can’t ____ it. ____ it if you can’t _____ing figure it the ___ out, ___hole.

    lala. apologies to all except mr. cun_-roger.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    [horendously gross expletive deleted]

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Obama’s…not afraid to admit when he did something stupid.

    How can anyone defend Obama? Obama is a traitor to the people, based on his own lies about his positions and his immediate relinquishment of his campaign promises.

    How can you support Obama after what he did in regards to Bradley Manning?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Cindy, Bradley Manning recklessly broke the law. Did you expect him to get a medal?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So did many gays before gay rights became more or less the law of the land. And so did many blacks in the segregated South before the Civil Rights legislation came into effect. But of course, we have to defend our government’s imperialistic policies and its shenanigans behind closed doors at all cost because it’s our government.

    Death to Julian Assange, the enemy of the people!

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I’m becoming more and more convinced that Cindy has Sarah Palin on speeddial… or at least her speech writer.

    Darling you need to have an original thought of your very own dear, try it, you might enjoy the sensation!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    As far as Bradley Manning goes, here’s a different spin on the matter. First and foremost, Manning had sworn an oath and he had access to secret material which – if released – he knew could seriously damage America’s military and diplomatic efforts. He knew this because such is part of what he is required to understand before he is given a secret clearance, just as I did.

    He decided to break his oath and expose the material anyway…and it is highly unlikely that a low-ranking person like himself could have known whether some of the material might really have caused some serious, long-term damage to America’s diplomatic efforts. It does not matter that he did this with the best of intentions, for as the old saying goes, such pave the road to hell. Even Hitler, as evil as he was, had what were in his own eyes the best of intentions.

    Okay? Manning broke a solemn oath and committed a very serious crime, and one that could have seriously damaged our diplomatic efforts and standing. I have ZERO gripes about him being placed under arrest and facing some of the harshest conditions that the military can legally impose. To be sure, this canNOT be compared to, say, the exposure of Lt. William Calley and the massacre at My Lai, for that was much more of a black-and-white matter.

    But diplomacy is never – repeat, never – a black-and-white matter, and what Manning did was reckless in the extreme. Not only that, but it is quite likely that those in Manning’s immediate chain of command had their careers seriously damaged (or ended) because of what Manning did, even though they had no clue what Manning was doing…and then there’s how what happened to their careers (thanks to Manning) affected their families. Yeah, that sucks, but that’s the way it is in the military…and rightfully so.

    Cindy, you know deep in your gut that I am quite liberal and love seeing high crimes exposed, and Manning did expose crimes by America. For that reason, once he is finally released from the prison time that he DOES deserve for the breaking of his oath and for the commission of his crime, I’ll shake his hand and let him know that the path of a whistleblower ain’t easy – I know, because I almost lost my career because of it. He did lose his career and is undergoing some truly hard times right now, but as time goes on he’ll be released, he’ll do the talk-show circuit, ghost-write a book, sell the rights to a movie, and live quite well off all the proceeds.

    But he must first pay the price. He must first do the time for the crimes (plural) which he knowingly committed.

  • Cannonshop

    #59 it should doc, for this reason: if you’re making more than x dollars, but the value of the individual dollars have declined by x+1, you’re not better off, you just have bigger numbers to look at while you’re starving in the dark.

    in 1960, supposedly, a workingman could support his family by himself, and families were bigger, today, if you have both wife and kid, you’re either a two-income household, or you have to rely on aid programmes or the kid starves. God help you if you have more than one kid on a single income below $80,000 a year, which is a damn sight HIGHER than the “poverty line”.

    MOST people don’t make that kind of money.

    Purchasing Power Matters. In our economy, Gasoline, food, and Rent-gasoline to get to work because most Americans dont’ live in an urban hive with reliable bus lines or elevated trains or subways, housing in those places costs WAY too much to afford per Sq. foot, people live where they can afford, which usually entails an activity called “Commuting” to a job if they don’t want to nobly starve, this requires fuel, fuel costs are therefore a critical measure of purchasing power for the average person-most of whom can’t afford a New Car every five years.

    Food: Food prices go up, purchasing power goes down. let me repeat that for you:

    Food Price goes Up, Purchasing power of your dollars goes down. Most employers can’t AFFORD to hand out a raise every time the price of a loaf of bread rises-or gallon of gas.

    Housing near paying work is practically a myth-specifically affordable housing, specifically affordable housing that isn’t either a poverty-only project (as determined by “Poverty Experts” in the government, most of whom have never been poor, nor even worked a straight, not-government job), or demilitarized zone (Usually both).

    The price not of a gallon, but of a tank of gas, is the difference in most families between going to a doctor, and waiting until it’s time to go to an emergency room. that’s not going to change under Obie’s “reform”, since the PPCA doesn’t anywhere in its fantasies account for the draining of paying jobs from the country, much of which is financed by Uncle Sam and driven by that same worthy-all the ‘bama care law really does, is criminalize anyone too low on the income scale to pay for health insurance.

    (Yeah, it’s a fine, guess what happens to you if you don’t pay your federal fines?)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A clip from Amy Goodman’s show today, an interview with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, showing erosion of support for Obama even among his most vocal supporters.

    We know of course we’ll withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan once Obama secures his second term. It would be imprudent for the first-term president to end America’s imperialistic engagements now.

    It’s only then, during the second term, when he’ll reveal himself for the progressive he really is and work on establishing his “legacy,” once he has nothing to loose.

    So “hope & change” is around the corner, Cindy. Don’t lose faith.

  • Costello

    Geez, Jet, that’s rather rude. Cindy’s hyperbole, though I disagree with it, doesn’t seem much different than anyone else’s

  • troll

    re 80 – guffaw

  • Cannonshop

    #78 there’s a question of whether Manning’s superiors really WERE unaware of his activities-if so, then they deserved to lose their careers over it, because he was in a Technical Field and those superiors are supposed to be at least marginally competent to oversee their subordinates.

    or, at minimum, to maintain security structures that prevent movement of information out of the loop of control.

    Esp. in light of cases like the Walkers as precedent. A suspicious person might wonder if Manning’s actions were not deliberately permitted, perhaps as a means of embarassing certain political masters.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Cannon:

    I just spent a considerable amount of time composing a response to your #79, but then managed to hit the wrong damn button on my keyboard and irretrievably wiped the whole thing before I could post. I’ll try again later. Just wanted you to know I haven’t forgotten you. :-)

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Permit me to be serious a moment. The solution seems quite simple to me… now stick with me on this (if you dare)

    Both houses of congress are not beholden to their constituents, they’re beholden to the millionaires and billionaires who contributed to their compaigns to pay for insanely expensive negative TV and print advertisements and now want their quid pro quo.

    In addition to that, once their in office they’re also beholden to the lobbyists lurking outside of their office doors with pockets stuffed with cash just waiting to buy their floor votes like frenzied housewives at a half-price dress sale at Sears.

    Political campaigns cost millions and billions of dollars… money that could be better spent creating jobs instead of buying power subsidising a congressional seat that pays less than one percent of what it cost rich supporters to buy in the first place.

    Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this???????

    Am I the only one that sees that big corporations aren’t hiring because of the economy or anything that’s going on in washington right now-they’re not hiring because they’re hoarding cash to buy the next election!

    Limit cash spent (not collected) on advertising. limit the total a candidate can collectively collect from contributors. Limit time used on TV to a certain amount of collective hours nationwide. That way they’ll concentrate on why you should vote FOR them not against someone else.

    Most voters lately have NO IDEA who they’re voting for-but they have 4-5 core reasons to vote against someone else.

    Is it any wonder why everyone hates washington lately, no one has a clue what we’d like anyone their, only why we hate someone else.

  • troll

    how can this simple solution be implemented given the present SCOTUS interpretation of protected political speech?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Jet, campaign finance [and even more, expenditures by groups outside of campaigns] are certainly a problem, in the sense that they are anti-democratic [small ‘d’], giving the biggest political clout to whoever can buy the most ads.

    But in dollar terms, it’s just a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of cash big companies hold. Companies are hoarding cash because demand for their products and services is low and not increasing much.

  • Cannonshop

    #85 Actually, Jet, I’d go one further than you-and limit the ability to contribute to a Candidate’s election to the district they’re running in, say, a residency requirement if you will.

    A firm wants to contribute, then they better have an office in his district, same for non-profits. Could you imagine the hilarity of an NRA office in Chicago or Berkeley?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I have plenty of sympathy for that mixed-up kid Bradley Manning. I’d like to give him a big ol’ hug. But comparing him to civil rights activists is quite ludicrous. He was leaking tons of stuff indiscriminately, without regard to consequences, mostly because he hated his job, his life and the world.

    And Julian Assange knew that wholesale posting of the leaks would expose Manning to prosecution. But he did it anyway. Saint Julian is no rights activist either, though he may fancy himself one. He’s more interested in his own celebrity. He’s a megalomaniac asshole.

    Citing this story as one of the main reasons for considering President Obama “a traitor to the people” [oh pleez!] is also completely absurd.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Re 88: absofuckinlootly.

    If we could take the total amout spent on the last 10 elections we could probably pay down half or more of the national debt.

    by the way it’s not the national debt that’s killing us-as with credit cards, it’s the finance charges on the national debt

  • Baronius

    If we took the amount spent on the last 10 elections it wouldn’t pay the interest on the debt, much less the principal.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    On #83, when it comes to investigations, evaluations, and fitness reports, it’s not so much whether they actually knew what Manning was doing, but more a matter of whether the supervisors and officers should have known what Manning was doing. Did they take the proper precautions, make the proper screening? Did they miss signs of what he was doing? Did they follow proper security procedures for access to secret materials? Did they miss signs of his discontent? I can promise you that his first class and chief got slammed, and his division officer almost certainly found that he would never again be promoted for the very reasons I listed above. The first class and chief would not get promoted, but the officer would be subject to “two-and-out”, meaning that if he fails to get promoted two times in a row, he’s out.

    And when NCIS and the admirals came on board to investigate, who do you think were their first targets after Manning was arrested? Even the department head, XO, and CO were likely to have gotten adverse fitness reports because of how embarrassing this was on a worldwide scale. The only ones in that workcenter who might have gotten through this matter relatively unscathed were those who were junior to Manning, and perhaps the other junior petty officers. And none of this even begins to address what happened to everyone’s clearances which in some fields are mandatory. If they lose their clearances, they become IBM’s – Instant Boatswain’s Mates. That’s how it works, Cannonshop.

    You see, it’s not simply a matter of who knew what and when. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, remember – even though you think I’m lying about it.

    #79 –

    Has it occurred to you that life was better for the majority of the people when our income equality was a lot closer? You see, back then – when we had unions and higher taxes – the people had better-paying jobs, the middle class was stronger, and single-earner households weren’t such a rarity.

    But now?

    The tax burden for you and me is lower than it has been for fifty years, the income for the rich has skyrocketed for THIRTY YEARS while yours and mine has stagnated or fallen, and we’ve shipped our factories and jobs overseas thanks to free trade.

    And FYI, that fine conservative president Clinton (and that’s not sarcasm) opened the gates by getting rid of tariffs that we charge other countries even though they STILL charge us tariffs (like China) and by allowing legislation that actually gave tax breaks to companies who were moving their operations overseas. The conservatives of his years STRONGLY supported what he approved…and the conservatives of today would never conscience going back to what Reagan had – tariffs and FAIR trade policies, and not allowing our manufacturing base to fritter away by going overseas.

    But try mentioning ‘tariffs’ to a Republican or a Teabagger today, and what would happen? You know very well what would happen.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Anyone who thinks and acts contrary to the liberal’s dogma and preconceptions is a mixed-up kid who deserves their sympathy. Only the liberals themselves aren’t mixed-up for their is the only true vision of political reality, from hawkish foreign policy and enhanced interrogation techniques to extensive outreach in domestic affairs and intrusion into the lives of its own citizens.

    But it’s our government, and we got to stand by it by hook or by crook.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, look at Roger!

    Now it’s the liberals who support hawkish foreign policy, enhanced interrogation techniques, and intrusion into peoples’ lives.

    He takes up his mile-wide broad brush and states that LIBERALS – not the president who has continued those three Bush-administration policies, but the liberals – are the ones who really, really want more war, torture, and the Patriot Act…despite the fact that AFAIK there has been ZERO support by BC liberals for any of these policies.

    And I guess he doesn’t realize that the week Obama took office he signed an executive order ending torture, our remaining troops in Iraq are no longer involved in active combat, and it is not the entire Patriot Act which was extended, but only certain sections of it. As far as the Afghanistan War – the one the Bush administration forgot about as Dubya decided to illegally invade Iraq – goes, Obama’s goal was to try to fix the crap sandwich Bush left him in Afghanistan…and while the outcome is in doubt, he’s at least trying to fix the soup sandwich he inherited in that war that was already over seven years old in January of 2009.

    So yes, Roger’s acting like a true Teabagger now – he makes up any accusation he likes because it sounds reasonable to his brain, and since the accusation has been made even though there is little or no evidence to back it up, to him it must therefore be true.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t know how far you go back, Cannon, but your #79 is right on the money. When I was working on Wall Street in the sixties, $100 a week (just for a clerical job) was decent. A bank VP, the Chief Agent for Bank of America, NY., was grossing only 20 grand a year. You could buy a brand new Chevy Impala for under 2 grand. The rents were low, and the value of the dollar was up. And that’s in New York.

    I realize this may be regarded by the young bucks as anecdotal, but that’s how it was, and no amount of statistical evidence, whether pro or con, can speak with the same force as, or be equivalent to, being there.

    All those who clamor the loudest about the return of the good old days have no idea how good the old days (in the mentioned respect) really were. Even Archie’s too young to speak authoritatively on the subject, from first-hand experience, that is.

    There is no substitute, I guess, for being able to clearly see our present without the vantage point of the experienced past. In the absence of the latter, it’s just “book knowledge.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And when NCIS and the admirals came on board to investigate […] perhaps the other junior petty officers.

    None of what you describe would have happened that way, Glenn, for the simple reason that Manning is a soldier, not a sailor.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Did I miss a memo? I didn’t know I wanted more war, torture, and the Patriot Act.

  • Clavos

    Companies are hoarding cash because demand for their products and services is low and not increasing much.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    It happened the last time you were under the knife, Jet. The anesthesiologist apparently didn’t give you enough of the good stuff, and halfway through the procedure you sat bolt upright screaming, “In the name of Barack! Kill! Bomb! Maim! Spy!” and were actually in the middle of a bogus phone call to NORAD, in which you pretended to be the President ordering them to raise the alert level to DEFCON 27 [blow up entire Solar System just to be on safe side], by the time the theater team finally managed to get another line in and subdue you.

    Not surprised you don’t remember it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’d say the stuff he was under was good, indeed, very good.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Manning exposed thrill killings within the US military. I think those who support the US covering up such things aren’t people I want to talk to let alone debate. I haven’t read all the comments, so this may or may not apply to you.

    Now I think I will go vomit.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    #93 is just about your silliest one yet. I don’t see things as black and white as that, and I doubt you actually believe I do. So why write such a pointless comment?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Liberals are the offspring of a sick system and they will defend that system, Roger. Don’t take it to heart. It’s indoctrinated pathology.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Oh… I knew there was a logical explanation.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I’m so relieved, now that the Pod People have explained my pathology to me.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Tea grows in a pod?

  • Baronius

    How is comment #93 different from #103?

  • zingzing

    it was just an echo, baronius.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Congratulations Baronius; it isn’t!… you win a cookie!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    None of what you describe would have happened that way, Glenn, for the simple reason that Manning is a soldier, not a sailor.

    Same thing, different service. The same principles would apply without fail.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    Liberals are the offspring of a sick system and they will defend that system, Roger. Don’t take it to heart. It’s indoctrinated pathology.

    So are you going to side with Roger that we’re for hawkish diplomacy, torture, and the Patriot Act?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #93 is just an inversion consisting of throwing Handy’s own words in his face.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cindy/Roger, how is it you figure you can so easily categorize “liberals” as a homogeneous unit?

    The two of you come across as spiteful, childish, lazy thinkers. Of course, you won’t accept an ounce of criticism for your personal views, so this comment really is a waste of time.

    And Glenn, Cindy’s going to side with Roger – no matter how many “up the arse” or “you’re on the rag” style homophobic and sexist remarks he makes toward other posters here. She’s got a fairly big ethical blindspot when it comes to her pals. When you’re ideological relatives, you can get away with anything. But when you’re a dastardly “liberal” brainwashed and bred by “the system,” everything you do and say is just plain wrong.

    Oh, but there’s hope! Cindy and Roger have the keys to the kingdom, they have the answers. The downside is that they’re not sharing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And BTW, offspring is too honorific a euphemism. Bastard is the word of choice.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Don’t take it to heart. It’s indoctrinated pathology.

    See? Liberals have an “indoctrinated disease.” This kind of thinking, this mentality, is absolutely fatal to true democracy and discourse. It’s absolutely vile to the core, yet people like Cindy hold fast and strong to the belief that they’ve got the “right” and “pure” outlook while others are suffering from some form of diseased mind brought on by the system.

    It’s exactly how people in a cult think.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Saint Julian is no rights activist either, though he may fancy himself one. He’s more interested in his own celebrity. He’s a megalomaniac asshole.

    This.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Same thing, different service. The same principles would apply without fail.

    I know, Glenn. I was just yanking your chain. :-)

  • zingzing

    “We shall ignore it therefore.”

    you used the royal we. groupthink! obey roger!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I would say also that Glenn and I probably aren’t typical of all liberals in our skeptical view of Manning and Assange, so using our idiosyncracies to paint all liberals is off-base.

    I have real differences with President Obama on Guantanamo and Afghanistan, to name two. I don’t expect to agree with any politician 100% of the time.

    But to take a disagreement on these issues and inflate it into “a traitor to the people” just sounds like lunacy to me.

    The foreign policy of this administration [which is where most of Cindy’s moral outrage is directed] is about caution, not about hostility toward peace’n’love. Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates have exerted a rightward influence on the president’s policies as well.

    But, honestly, if Rick Perry gets elected next year, then you’ll really have something to complain about.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Never used the word “traitor.” And only by implication, my suggestion was he’s not an advocate.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    #116: Jordan, you quote my putdown of Assange and append the gnomic one-word comment, “This.” I’d be interested to know what you meant.

  • zingzing

    also, i’d like to see you prove that i never pay attention to the context. in the context, i know that’s just a typical rogerific insult, but still…

    also, are you not bothered by your anger?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Cindy used the phrase “traitor to the people.” It’s not always all about you.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    OK, Cannon, let’s try that response to your #79 again…

    Purchasing power does matter, but you’re conflating poverty with living beyond one’s means (however unavoidable that situation may be). They’re not the same thing at all. Poverty is institutional and is almost impossible to get out of. The same can be said of modern living, but it’s largely the choices we make – choices of convenience – that get us into that particular trap.

    What I’m getting at is that the effect you describe is largely born not of the Great Society but of the convenience society.

    50 years ago a much greater portion of the population rented, families often slept two or three or more to a room, it was a rare household that owned more than one car and many got by without one at all.

    Now the meme is that you must own your own home or you’re worthless; and that home should be big enough for everyone to have their own room (otherwise it’s regarded as overcrowding). Two-car households are becoming the norm, and indeed it’s not at all unusual for families to own more vehicles than there are family members registered to drive them. My retired in-laws, for example, rattle around in a 3000 square foot, four bedroom house and own four cars and a trailer, in spite of the fact that all three of their children have long since flown the nest. With the rise of the Internet and mobile telecommunications, more and more everyday functions are becoming easiest to do – or in some cases can only be done – online, which makes ownership of a computer and a cellphone (or three or seven) more of a necessity than a luxury.

    Long-distance commutes to work, which require the use of a car, are an offshoot of the property boom, its resultant urban sprawl and the failure in many cases to develop public transport infrastructures to go with it.

    Food and gas prices are inevitably going to rise as pressure on the food production and distribution system grows and oil stocks are depleted.

    All of these are global phenomena and can hardly be laid at LBJ’s or Obama’s door.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wasn’t meaning to suggest it’s always about me. The phrase was used however as part of direct response to my posting. Since I don’t have a photographic memory, nor am I in the habit of reading and absorbing each and every comment, I responded in the way I did. The point really is, these weren’t my words.

    As to Cindy, I’m certain she can speak for herself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    %126 and #128

    I’m exercising my royal privilege in assuming I speak for the select three. In the event I’m wrong, I’m more than willing to admit my mistake and move on.

    There’s no longer anger in my heart, only bewilderment sprinkled with touches of irony. I believe the detached character of my remarks is a testimonial to that effect.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Extermination” — a hyperbole.

    If I were truly advocating any such thing, I myself would be a subhuman.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Sorry, handyguy, I meant that you’re absolutely right. The guy’s a snake.

    Way to make me Google “gnomic,” though. You learn something new every day.

  • zingzing

    “I’m exercising my royal privilege in assuming I speak for the select three. In the event I’m wrong, I’m more than willing to admit my mistake and move on.”

    so, are you saying that when you say “we” or speak of multiple people’s opinions, you are not appointing yourself the everyman, speaker of truth for all humanity? i realize that would be an incredibly stupid thing to assume, but i’ll await confirmation.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The value of Assange doesn’t lie with whom he sleeps with, not even with whether he’s sleazy or not, but in the net effect of his labors. It’s bigger than personality, and any attempt to reduce the impact of disclosures made available through WikiLeaks to Julian Assange’s character as a person, whether real or imagined, is an attempt to minimize the effect of the disclosures and their contribution to the common good.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Not everyone, just the select few. I believe I know their mind well enough to speak authoritatively.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Don’t claim to be original, Mr. Richardson, only to be working hard and struggling with whatever ideas I come up with. And I’m not ashamed of the fact in the least. So your intended dig leaves me cold.

  • zingzing

    “I believe I know their mind well enough to speak authoritatively.”

    you let them know that.

  • Jordan Richardson

    only to be working hard and struggling with whatever ideas I come up with. And I’m not ashamed of the fact in the least.

    Well, one could interpret your notion that you’re trying to provide the indoctrinated with a “breath of fresh air” as a claim to at least some originality. I’ll take you at your word, though.

    Nor should you be. I wouldn’t dare criticize someone’s honest grappling, but your violent and increasingly crude contempt for the ideological struggles of others with their own different ideas is troubling.

  • zingzing

    also, do you not recognize the context of my assumption in #136?

  • zingzing

    the likes of you and i, jordan, are just cockroaches to be crushed by roger’s boot of freedom.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Roger’s going to need a bigger boot.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Can someone save the URL for this article for when Roger and Cindy feign that they think they are better than everyone else?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #140 This is a public forum, accessible to everyone. If I’m wrong, I’m certain I’ll be corrected.

    #141 I seriously doubt that most people take their time to go through “ideological struggles.” That’s not my experience. And if and when they do, I believe I’m capable of discerning that and act accordingly.

    And again, my attempt to introduce “new” perspectives into political discussion on BC doesn’t imply originality, and if it does, it was clumsy wording on my part. I stand on the shoulders of my predecessors. I’m too humble to ever deny that.

    #142 – no I don’t, seems like a word game to me.

    Gonna watch a mocie now. Tomorrow.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Your experience must be incredibly limited, Roger, and, perhaps more accurately, blinded by your own ignorance if you don’t think most people go through ideological struggles in some capacity or another.

    Of course, you get people wrong so damn often that it’s not surprising you believe what you do. Your discernment skills really could use some work, but your disdain for your fellow humans is as inescapable as ever.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And in closing, LB, I don’t think you’ll find the URL you’re looking for, because there is no such article.

    Good night, everybody.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Again, Mr. Richardson, I do thank you for your advice, knowing full well it came from a friend. But I believe I’ve already expressed this sentiment before, just wonder why you persist.

    Good night again, this time for good.

  • zingzing

    “#142 – no I don’t, seems like a word game to me.”

    no, it’s when you branded me the “self-appointed everyman” because i dared to say others shared a similar opinion (of you and your ability to misread people). it was a while back, but hypocrisy knows not age.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger and Cindy –

    So I’m still waiting for you to show us how us liberals are so supportive of we’re for hawkish diplomacy, torture, and the Patriot Act…either you show us where we’re SO supportive of such policies, or own up to Roger making a false accusation…

    …not that I expect you’ll have the courage to do the latter since you can’t prove the former.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    handy,

    My use of the word ‘pathology’ was neither hostile nor blind. If you have ever understood anything I have said over the years then you may comprehend that I am very serious when I say ‘pathology’.

    I consider the state of human consciousness under capitalism to be pathological. That will include the operators under it. If you have noticed the amount of anti-depressants sold along with the numerous aberrations (rape, murder, self and other objectification, anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, war, aggression, manipulation, slavery) that afflict humans you will be clear that I am serious when I say pathology. I have noticed it since I could talk and think and have spent since then trying to comprehend it. I feel I am getting a real handle on its causes and implications at last.

    If you care to, you might actually see the same thing I do. You likely just prefer to block it out in favor of more pleasant distractions.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jordan –

    I, for one, do not understand what happened to Roger – and that’s what keeps me in this fractious discussion, because I really don’t like finding something I don’t understand and leaving it alone before I’ve got it figured out. You know the type who come upon a conundrum that they just can’t leave alone till they figure it out – that’s me.

    But Roger used to give incisive arguments and truly constructive criticisms, but his arguments have since devolved to something significantly less than what they were before…and I don’t understand why that is. Was it due to a traumatic experience? I seem to remember that he had lost a good job and was heading back to stay with family to get back on his feet. Several months after that his use of language began changing, and his arguments were not as level-headed as before.

    That’s why, as much as we’re all getting quite frustrated with Roger, I can’t help but think there’s much more to the story, for someone’s personality doesn’t normally change so radically and so quickly. Of course what’s going on in his personal life is his business and never mine – but something’s affected him greatly over the past two years.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’ve been thinking the same thing, Glenn. Not really sure what’s going on, but the change in Roger hasn’t been ideological or one of substance – it’s been one wholly of approach, one that’s becoming increasingly caustic by the day.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    The list of ‘aberrations’ you gave are every bit as present in other non-capitalist societies (with the exception of the eating disorders). Don’t take that observation as an outright vote of support for capitalism, though – what this nation needs is a good shot of socialism and we’d all be better off for it.

    And you still haven’t answered my question about whether you support Roger’s accusations about liberals.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Glenn,

    I have no idea what you are talking about or what the context is of your request that I meet your challenge. I still have not read the entire thread and that includes Roger’s comments.

    But, it occurs to me to ask you, based on the content of your comment: Do you defend and/or support Obama? Because he is responsible for perpetuating every one of those things you mention. Right now he is busy breaking the UN rules in regards to ‘human rights’ (you know the ones other countries are supposed to follow).

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Capitalism is only one face of the larger problem Glenn–domination.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    It’s from comment #93:

    Anyone who thinks and acts contrary to the liberal’s dogma and preconceptions is a mixed-up kid who deserves their sympathy. Only the liberals themselves aren’t mixed-up for their is the only true vision of political reality, from hawkish foreign policy and enhanced interrogation techniques to extensive outreach in domestic affairs and intrusion into the lives of its own citizens.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Capitalism is only one face of the larger problem Glenn–domination.

    Domination takes on a number of forms, of course. Some dominate by labelling their opponents with broad strokes, dehumanizing them in the process by attributing their entire sets of mental processes to diseased thinking.

    Others dominate with violent rhetoric, like admittedly hyperbolic suggestions to crush “cockroaches” and volunteer to do the “exterminating.”

    These are all forms of domination, forms that are put into the bloodstream regularly and readily by the likes of Roger and Cindy.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    On whether I defend and support Obama, remember that I was an alternate state delegate for Hillary, and she certainly would have been a more effective president IMO.

    That said, there are certainly several things that I strongly disagree with Obama, things where I strongly agree with him, and things that I’m not real fond of but can understand and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

    But it seems that to the anti-Obama crowd, when they make a false accusation against him and I defend him against said false accusation, all of a sudden I’m an Obama-lover in their eyes. If you or anyone else makes accusations against him that I hold to be true – such as his failure to go after the Republicans and bankers and lobbyists who drove us into the Great Recession – I’ll be first in line to agree with you! But if someone starts complaining how he’s so ‘hawkish’ in foreign policy (he’s not, despite Afghanistan and Libya), his supposed support of torture (which he ended his first week in office), and he support of extension of the Patriot Act (which was only an extension of certain portions therein and NOT the whole thing), that shows me that that someone is going off half-cocked, as it were, and being much too quick to accuse without taking the time to look at the whole story or the whole situation.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    The world we see and know is the result of domination ‘mentality’. To the extent that people do not challenge their indoctrinated views, they are at the whims of this ‘mentality’. This includes accepting it as reality and foisting it on others as reality (see those liberal teachers making good citizens and good workers for the society, those liberal social workers trying to change those who are not able to adjust and perpetuating the foolhardy belief that it is those who can’t adjust that own the problem.)

    It is a consenting to the social reality that is the source of the problem and expecting, teaching and even demanding that others consent to it that makes liberals culpable for the perpetuation of the pathology.

    Look at the response even on this thread when someone ‘breaks the rules’ and takes a stand outside the acceptable (read INEFFECTIVE*) methods of challenging the social order.

    *This is the ‘liberal’ problem. It stops REAL challenges to the system from happening by insisting everyone stand in line like good little boys and girls. It defends the system. Evidence on this thread is an example of that in action.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    161 is to you, Glenn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    Liberalism stops ‘real’ challenges to the system by getting them to stand in line like good little boys and girls?

    Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act? And without liberals, who do you think will fight for the civil rights of LGBT’s or those of other religions? Who do you think will fight to preserve the separation of church and state?

    Would the anarchists? Or anyone else? No. No one else in America has not only the desire but also the wherewithal to fight for those things. This is what happens when wishful thinking hits political and social reality.

    Methinks you might want to lay off the Kool-Aid a bit….

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Glenn,

    Obama’s administration always has and continues to support rendition of suspects to countries that routinely engage in torture.

    Bradley Manning was tortured on US soil. Obama’s response? He said asked the military if they were torturing Manning and they said no.

    He also refused to follow UN rules of investigation of Manning’s torture.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    “Methinks you might want to lay off the Kool-Aid a bit…”

    And with that insult, I relegate you to that status I hold Jordan in, persona non grata.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    But, do look up the anarchist contribution to the realization of the 8 hour work day/5 day work week (vs the 12-16 hour work day/6 day work week), Glenn.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    …and people still wonder why I’m gay…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    …I didn’t wonder before, but I do now, Jet Gardner…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    (That was in code, don’t even attempt to figure it out.)

  • zingzing

    cindy: “And with that insult, I relegate you to that status I hold Jordan in, persona non grata.”

    cindy, is that all it takes to get on your bad side? that doesn’t bode well for a future utopia of social cooperation and good will. you seem to want to make people see the light, as it were, but what you present seems very unattractive when it’s expressed like this.

    “Look at the response even on this thread when someone ‘breaks the rules’ and takes a stand outside the acceptable (read INEFFECTIVE*) methods of challenging the social order.”

    what, that they think someone is supporting a pipe dream? that’s how people reacted to it, when that’s what they really were reacting to, and that would be the natural response to something someone finds ineffective. it’s not in any way unacceptable. it’s not “breaking the rules.” you and roger aren’t rebels. you’re opinionated loudmouths, just like the rest of us. it’s just that you choose to separate yourself from elected officials. good for you, but that doesn’t get rid of the elected officials. nor does it change their behavior.

    but the most visceral reaction was against the anger and contempt on display from you two, not from anything having to do with your political philosophies. demeaning insults and false accusations really aren’t going to get you anywhere.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Did you know that if you look up “redundant” in the dictionary it says (see redundant)?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    oh zing, i was merely being dramatic. no, that’s not all it takes to get on my bad side.

    i wasn’t talking about roger and i breaking the rules. i was talking about the liberal response to manning and assange.

    it’s just that you choose to separate yourself from elected officials. good for you, but that doesn’t get rid of the elected officials. nor does it change their behavior.

    right, it doesn’t change a thing. because liberals do not do likewise the system stays the same. if they did likewise, the system might change. i think you are making my argument for me.

    i don’t recall any demeaning insults or false accusations.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Hiya Irene :-) Nice to see your typing.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    I’m not an anarchist, but Cindy, Roger, Troll and I have pleasant conversations when we do have them, and often end up just agreeing to disagree. So I don’t think that it’s inherently a problem with Cindy and Roger. I can’t see that they argue any more “nastily” than anyone else on here.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    Boy, talk about a dictionary chasing its own tail, Jet. Howdy Cindy, Roger and sundry p.n.g. And good night, too.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    I just popped in for a second. Always good to catch you if only for that long. :)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    and zing, let’s get something straight, little buddy, i made a comment about obama and manning, to which a lot of replies were made. many of them disgusted me. is that okay if i am disgusted by the defense of a power that tortures a whistleblower and deprives him of his right to freedom because he revealed its evil secrets?

    is it not okay to be appalled at what one finds appalling, or should i be ‘english’ about everything? i find the defense of the crimes of the state appalling. my explanation of indoctrination and pathology is sincere. sorry that i am not mary poppins. if i wrote a book i would likely called it ‘the pathology of the adjusted american’.

    i mean, is it okay with you if i have explanations of how things are that aren’t cozy and pretty and flattering?

    (none of the above is in anger or frustration or anything, i’m just expressing my true thoughts)

  • zingzing

    “i was talking about the liberal response to manning and assange.”

    liberals have protested manning’s treatment at quantico. the military has said that his transfer to less harsh conditions at ft leavenworth has nothing to do with protests against his treatment at quantico, but the conditions of his detention have changed. i don’t think it was the anarchist community’s protests that perked any ears up, if any ears were perked at all–the anarchist voice in this nation is too small, and why on earth would any gov’t listen to it in the first place?

    i don’t see any reason why manning should have ever been in solitary confinement. if all were right in the world, he’d be freed based on the fact that what he did was of more potential worth than whatever damages result from the laws he broke. but he broke laws, several of them, and the inevitable conclusion of breaking laws and getting caught is that you go to jail.

    i don’t know how you can say that liberal opinion of assange is one monolithic thing. it isn’t. personally, i feel like he’s doing good work, bringing a little sunshine and transparency to world affairs. he may be a creep, or that all could be a witch hunt. it doesn’t change my opinion of wikileaks in general. most of the liberals i know have either similar opinions or slightly less enthusiastic reactions to assange the man, but not his work. you don’t seem to have listened to the “liberal response” if you came to the conclusions you have come to.

    “right, it doesn’t change a thing. because liberals do not do likewise the system stays the same.”

    well, it never stays the same. it moves slower than you’d like it to, and maybe sometimes it moves away from the direction you’d want it to, but that’s the nature of democracy. nobody’s ever 100% pleased with it. we have a plurality of opinion, and we hope our gov’t reflects that. that it doesn’t is a reflection of the fact that human institutions are flawed, just as we are.

    that said, if liberals removed themselves from the process, as you have, we wouldn’t suddenly have what you want. we’d have a conservative monopoly on gov’t.

    “i don’t recall any demeaning insults or false accusations.”

    well, you intimated that liberals are just symptoms of a disease, which is a bit of an insult. “pathology” or “pathological,” however you put it, certainly isn’t a kind word, and no matter how you meant it, it came off as needlessly insulting and holier than thou. roger, on the other hand, said all us liberals love war, torture and the patriot act, which is just blind hatred on display, nothing more.

  • zingzing

    “i mean, is it okay with you if i have explanations of how things are that aren’t cozy and pretty and flattering?”

    perfectly fine. just make sure that you aren’t making crass generalizations that are easily discounted and maybe you’ll be greeted with responses more to your liking.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    zing,

    i could care less what sort of response i get. i don’t make crass generalizations. my pov can be easily and entirely discounted by pretty much anyone who hasn’t examined their own indoctrinated views. i myself would have discounted me. it seems to be a habit for humans to discount views they haven’t really examined. there is a reason for that.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Who is chasing whom’s tail, round and around and around? I rest my case, and good night

  • zingzing

    well, if you think that liberals have a negative view of manning and assange, that’s a crass generalization. it doesn’t reflect the more varied reality, and that accusation–and it is an accusation, coming from you–isn’t discounted because someone hasn’t examined your view, it’s because you haven’t accurately examined or described another view.

    and i don’t view myself as indoctrinated so much as partially resigned. gov’t is at best a necessary evil, and at worst, it’s an inevitable reality.

  • zingzing

    and don’t call me “little buddy” if you don’t want me to think you condescending. i won’t for the moment, but damn, woman…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ooooh, “persona non grata.” Classy.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    well, you intimated that liberals are just symptoms of a disease, which is a bit of an insult.

    i have said that liberals contribute to a social reality that is sick. almost a tautology, i think. how the hell could it continue to be sick if half the participants weren’t, themselves sick? and perpetuating it?

    i find supporting a criminal state that takes part in human deaths and oppression deserves a bit of an insult mate. imagine what would happen if every liberal stopped doing that and actually challenged the status quo.

    “pathology” or “pathological,” however you put it, certainly isn’t a kind word, and no matter how you meant it, it came off as needlessly insulting and holier than thou.

    this social culture supports a world that causes some children to starve to death and that maims and burns other children alive. it promotes an us vs them nationality and normalizes institutionalized killing and glorifies war, it makes women into things that men ejaculate to and it forces men into positions which rob them of experiences they should have and propels them toward driving humans toward extinction. it impresses violence and aggression and competition as solutions and promotes human objectification on all levels. it makes teenage girls vomit to be thin and want implants to be loved. it makes boys feel inadequate and it fucks everyone up mentally and emotionally and sucks the life out of them.

    every single day the existence of that pathology infringes on my world and my life. it has impacted my life and my choices. partly by my own involvement as a part of it. nothing i said is gratuitous or casual or personally attacking. that is my hypothesis. the world is a pathological place. it could be designed to support life and love and peace instead it is a great cesspool of pollution and waste and exploitation and war and domination. and it is not because another reality is not possible it is because the dominator wiped whoever stood in his way and took instead of cooperation there has been greed and discounting of anyone who is not in the power ingroup.

    that is pathology, zing. imo.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    lol, ‘little buddy’

    i kind of saw myself as the skipper and you as gilligan for a minute…dunno why.

    sorry…lost myself in that funny thought. i just felt compelled to include it.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    well, if you think that liberals have a negative view of manning and assange, that’s a crass generalization.

    true…i stand corrected. it was just the liberals on here that replied, i guess i overreached and did make a ‘crass generalization’.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    nightie night, zing (sorry about the ‘little buddy’ thing…but, lol, i still am stuck on that weird little mental picture).

  • Cannonshop

    #110- when I was in, and handling material classified at a much lower than top-secret level, we weren’t allowed to bring recording OR playback devices into the document room. Manning was able to openly bring in a CD player and “CD’s”-that’s his method, which is, right there, a violation of most of the standard security measures ARMY posts have for departments such as his.

    Or, at least, the ones we had under Clinton and GHWBush’s terms in office. I doubt they slacked that under GWB, but I could be wrong. The presence of the CD player at ALL in the same room as those computers would’ve had his ass escorted out under armed guard the first time it was seen.

    Since this didn’t happen, well…a few years ago, I referred to Abu Ghraib as a sign of rotted out discipline and absent training. Manning’s case looks more and more the same, so I have to wonder just how far training has slipped in the last twenty years… certainly his conduct reflects the “Stress Card” generation to a rather disturbing degree, but that he was allowed to indicates his NCO’s weren’t doing their jobs, and the officers above them weren’t doing THEIR jobs, perhaps all the way up to Battalion or Regimental level.

    In the navy, they use a civilian agency called NCIS, which used to be NIS. The Army has CID-which is staffed by the detective version of Military Police-they’re soldiers, not civilians, and they operate under UCMJ, not Habeas Corpus or civilian rules of evidence.

    But aside from that, your timeline is, with changes to service references, essentially correct.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    …the Professor and Mary Ann…

  • zingzing

    “i have said that liberals contribute to a social reality that is sick. almost a tautology, i think. how the hell could it continue to be sick if half the participants weren’t, themselves sick? and perpetuating it?”

    it would continue without them. the system doesn’t care who participates. if half the voters stopped voting, that would only be a drop of about 20% of the public.

    “this social culture supports a world that causes some children to starve to death and that maims and burns other children alive.”

    that’s the world at its worst, and is not a reflection of individuals at their best. to the rest of that paragraph and the next, i say that’s one of the most pessimistic accounts of the world i’ve ever seen. certainly those things do happen, but there is also good in this society, and if you chose to ignore it, it’s your own loss.

    it’s one of the things i’ve got against anarchism. i don’t want to go through my life feeling like i’m the subject of oppression. you may say that just because i don’t know it doesn’t mean it’s so. but i really don’t feel or live my life as if i am an oppressed person living in a nightmare world.

    i recognize that there are faults in ourselves, in our gov’t and in the world. but that’s cool. i’ve no time to be angry and filled with seething anger and rotting hatred. life’s a pretty good thing, and i feel damn lucky to have been born when and where i was. i could be an ant, or i could have been born in somalia a few years ago. i fucking lucked out.

    also, i don’t wear hats. but if i were to wear a hat, i’d look funny in it.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    Sometimes I wonder if there was someone “upline” of Manning who WANTED all that rottenness to be exposed, knowing there were “cons” to the revelations being so wide-reaching but feeling they were outweighed the “pros.”

    I know the soldier who was told to leave the wounded kids behind (too incriminating, I guess) considers Manning a hero, in spite of the flaws he knows the man had.

  • Cannonshop

    #130 But Doc, where did the Convenience society COME FROM? It certainly predates a lot of things-say, the 1920’s, for example, or the turn of the century, or perhaps the Industrial Revolution…

    What LBJ did, was trying to finance his Great Society social reforms with a half-assed Keynesian model, the whole reason Johnson escalated Vietnam, was to create a Boom to pay for the War on Poverty, a technique known as “Guns and butter” economics-the bomb factories, boot factories, uniform factories, ammo factories and airplane factories churned on and on (thus improving the employment numbers), while surplus manpower was diverted to fighting an undeclared war.

    Sound familiar?

    it should, it lasted from 1964 to 1970 in some areas, but it wasn’t sustainable then, and it ain’t sustainable now-the early seventies saw a minor recession with a side of gas-prices increasing…kind of like today, after around ten years of war. Rampant unemployment too-plagued the Seventies and eighties…like today. New massive government programmes provided some small-scale relief for select demographics…like today.

    Direct action by the government failed to halt the damage (wages and price controls then, Stimulus packages and bailouts today)…

    what the hell was I saying?

    ooh! Shiny…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    outweighed BY. Here, I found the quote:
    Former U.S. Army Specialist Ethan McCord, who carried to safety children wounded in the war crime of 360 degree rotational fire in residential neighborhoods, to safety said this:

    “If PFC Bradley Manning did what he is accused of, he is a hero of mine, not because he’s perfect or because he never struggled with personal or family relationships – – most of us do– because in the midst of it all he had the courage to act on his conscience.”

  • zingzing

    “you may say that just because i don’t know it doesn’t mean it ISN’T so,” i meant to say.

    and i do realize that saying that as a white male does present a few problems. but that’s why i’m a liberal.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    zing, when you enjoy you cup of cocoa on a cold night, the sub teenage slave boys who were kidnapped to harvest that cocoa will still be chained in that night in a bunker to produce it for you whether you choose to know about it or to just enjoy its chocolaty goodness.

    you are in a privileged class and of a privileged gender. it does not come as a shock to me that you do not feel oppressed.

    good thing for you too. cuz if you weren’t privileged, you might actually have to depend on people like you to challenge their gov’t and way of life so that you could just have any life at all. and we know how far that would get you…you know, if YOU needed that.

  • zingzing

    cindy, i don’t like chocolate.

    and reread that last comment of mine. you act as if i don’t give a shit about kids in chains or some such thing, which is bullshit, and you know it. i figure that being a liberal gives me a chance to do my small part in making real world changes rather than just complaining about crap. i don’t think being an anarcho-feminist would further those goals, and, in fact, would probably lessen my impact upon the political process that could further those goals by removing my vote and the only real voice i have.

    by removing your voice from the political process you do not create change, you just empower those who do what you disagree with to do whatever they please that much more.

    to use your rhetoric, you might as well put the shackles on that kid yourself if you’re not going to make your voice heard in the political process.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    194 – That is a good quote. Thanks for posting that, Irene. Here is a 10 min excerpt from Incident in New Baghdad with Ethan McCord:

    What Ethan McCord saw when he rescued the children…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    zing,

    it is good to know you care.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Am I to understand that Cindy ensures that all of her clothing, food and products have been created without the use of child slavery or unfair work practices?

    Here she sits on a computer, typing on the Internet in a comfortable home that probably has heating and plumbing – along with a number of modern implements. I think she may even have a television.

    She, too, is part of a privileged class. So is Roger – with or without the Camaro.

    Yet we’re asked, time and time again, to believe that they’ve been freed from the shackles of indoctrination and that they have a vastly different POV (one we privileged can’t possibly grasp) because they read different books than we did (or so they think). They share the right video clips, listen to the right lectures.

    They are free thinkers; we are propping up the system with our gluttony.

    I hate to break it to Cindy, even though I’ve been reduced to another class of person by the anarchist, but she’s not as “outside” the indoctrination as she thinks.

    I certainly understand her disdain for the system as it is, but making enemies of those who could prove to be some of her most fervent, passionate allies is not a good sign.

  • zingzing

    you never had any reason to doubt that i did. you never had any reason to doubt that anyone doesn’t care. but that’s what you did. why?

    everyone here, right or left or anarchist or anything, everyone cares about those things. to not care would be inhuman. we’re all trying to do what we think is right.

    you can doubt if someone is on the right path, but to doubt in individuals’ basic humanity is blindness. that’s what i think is your basic mistake. you seem to think that because many of us are willing to participate in the political process, we agree with everything that political process begets. that’s not the case. if it was, we wouldn’t argue about politics.

    you and (especially) roger come on here and basically nag and tell us we’re all horrible people. in the end, i’m closer to your side than (i’d be willing to bet) a lot of people on this site. but your efforts have not pulled me nearer to giving up on the political process we have in place (it’s entrenched, really), and have actually pushed me further away. you’ve made it look like a headspace full of anger and futility, rather than a position of enlightenment and true peace.

    in the end, i agree with your goals, just not your method of achieving those goals.

  • Jordan Richardson

    zingzing, well said. It seems to me that they go out of their way to alienate those of us who are close to being their ideological allies, shoving our faces in the dirt for not holding views that are entirely uniform to theirs.

    Instead of unity, they want to box us all up into categories. When we defy their categories, they pretend we didn’t.

    I wrote a number of book reviews and articles on socialism (“Ecology and Socialism,” “The Case for Socialism,” etc.), class struggle, trade embargoes, blockades, etc., but I’m just “some liberal” who “froths at the mouth” and writes music reviews. You get used to it. Some people don’t get nuanced views.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    Why would one think that Cindy’s direct involvement in the (current) political process is required for her voice to make a difference? People being made aware of the things Cindy talks about can change their buying habits and their OWN voting habits.

    If Cindy were leaving it to the Obama-said-it-I-believe-it-That-settles-it crowd to say it for her, NO ONE* would be continuing to press for reining in the callous PFC-as-video-gamer types — much less pressing Obama and Congress to end the wars altogether (and to stop starting new ones.)

    re: males, including white ones. Not so privileged as we think. A lot of them who have no economic options but to join the military are being sent on their third/fourth tours of duty. Many see, or are even ordered to participate in, senseless violence against civilians, and many come back seriously damaged psychologically. Hence, there’s a disheartening rise in violence in the homes of returning servicemen, as well as military suicide rates that are trending upward.

    *well, supporters of Ron Paul and Kucinich would, but zingzing has also referred to their political efforts as a waste of time and energy (which is tantamount, I suppose, to their joining Cindy in her disengagement from the current political process. So yep, it would be up to the Obama-said-it-I-believe-it-That-settles-it people, and from them it does not appear to be forthcoming.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    Caring is more than saying you care. It’s DOING something about it, holding the feet of the man you helped to elect to the fire.

  • zingzing

    well, you have to give it to cindy that she doesn’t automatically descend into insults, a la roger. although maybe you two have a history of your own. i dunno.

    music is much more important than politics anyway. if new order were to break up my fucking world would—OH WHAT THE FUCK.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Agreed again, zingzing.

    although maybe you two have a history of your own. i dunno.

    I honestly don’t know either. Up to her.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Obama-said-it-I-believe-it-That-settles-it crowd

    Which crowd is that, Irene? I personally don’t know anyone of that ilk.

  • zingzing

    irene, kucinich is as close to “me” as it gets on the congressional floor. but he’s a bit of a waste of a vote in the end. if i could, i’d vote for him, but i can’t. he’s not from my state, and he’s never made it to a presidential primary in my state.

    also, cindy’s words may have impact upon people’s buying habits, but i’d bet that impact can be numbered at less than 100. that’s lovely (and i don’t buy chocolate, and i used to occasionally drink coors until i read about the coors family), but it’s fairly local, isn’t it? voting has fairly minimal impact as well, but at least you do what you can.

    “Caring is more than saying you care. It’s DOING something about it, holding the feet of the man you helped to elect to the fire.”

    which you do by voting, and little else. if you have other methods of doing so, please tell the voters, who will vote with such info in mind.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I doubt the wisdom of jumping into this debate but can’t resist the probably vain attempt to inject a little sobriety and rationality into all this huffing and puffing.

    Despite the fact that it would probably horrify them, Roger and Cindy are really liberal philosophers that are long on ideas but, based on their postings alone, staggeringly short of any practical steps to make any meaningful changes.

    I’m not saying that I do either, but it seems to me that the best anyone can do is to try and live their lives in a way that seems right to them.

    I believe that the cumulative effect of everybody’s individual choices constitutes social evolution, so every choice we all make every day obviously matters a great deal.

    It is rarely helpful to criticise the actions of others as that usually just makes them defensive and exactly the kind of largely sterile debate as we see above takes place.

    What we can all do is take advantage of new information and opportunities to try and make better choices than we or others have previously done, whilst retaining a little essential humility and compassion.

    Pointing out new modalities and inviting others to adopt them is always interesting but attacking others for their choices is almost always a mistake.

    If we aren’t making practical choices and decisions in the real world (not that I am suggesting that any of us isn’t), then we are not acting as agents of change.

    Rather than the rather unhelpful use of electrons displayed in most of the above “debate”, does any one actually have any specific suggestions as to what might be beneficial cultural, social, commercial or political changes or innovations?

    I would really like to see some novel suggestions of steps we can take to move all our small worlds forwards, trusting in the proven idea that lots of small changes aggregate into larger ones.

    It is frustrating to see so many people of clearly good intent squabbling like this, surely something that only serves the many common enemies we face.

    Let’s move on from this mostly sterile debating and possibly aim for a little more functionality and pragmatism.

    Having said that I guess raises the question of what am I doing?

    Well, I believe that drowning men or women can’t really help others in the same situation, so the first thing I am aiming for is to drag myself out of the water.

    So far I have transformed my situation from one of poverty and homelessness to one of relative, if fragile, safety.

    My next aim is to generate some meaningful wealth by a variety of means and use that energy to instigate a few initiatives to help the world bootstrap itself.

    I think the concept of micro-finance, which is lending money directly to the world’s poorest people so they personally can take local initiatives to improve their lives, is empowering people in a most fundamental way and is far more useful and efficient than aid. It is also a good (in two senses) business in and of itself, so seems doubly useful to me.

    To that end, if I can I am going to set up a foundation (a type of legal entity that lacks owners and can continue on its work after the deaths of those that set it up) that will own businesses and use the profits of those businesses to help others.

    If any of you are at all interested in doing something similar or helping that process, feel free to reach out.

    It may not be all that much and it may not work, but it is what I believe and what I am going to work towards accomplishing.

    I offer this up not as any kind of way to claim that I am smarter or better informed or more insightful than anybody else, simply as an example of a way that practical action really can be taken by anybody, regardless of their circumstances, something that was not possible only 10 or 20 years ago. That it now is must surely be testament to the progress we have made over that time…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Chris, what do you make of organizations like Kiva? The wife and I have been involved with them (they do micro-loans) for a few years now and it’s very interesting to hear the different success stories that come out of that.

    Is your micro-finance venture along the same lines?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    But Zing! Is there someone in your state who has Kucinich-like ideas? Campaign for him/her. If he’s successful in the state legislature, he may make it to Capitol Hill…Voting the only way to show you care politically? HECK no. You write letters, you phone in, you encourage others to do the same, you show up at their offices, you campaign for their opponents. Maybe Kucinich is (or will be, if he runs) unelectable because you keep TELLING people that he’s unelectable.

    Caring about and for vets scarred by the war? Why not ask someone from Veterans for Peace–they’ll have scads of ideas.

    As far as the miniscule effect changing buying habits has: For one thing, it’s the “well, I helped THAT starfish” principle. For another, people make changes in stages. Switching coffee and chocolate brands will be the first steps to more radical changes for a lot of people. The next step is participating in a MAJOR change in the way we deal commercially with China and other places with bad human rights records, and that will have more to do with us as consumers than a Congress that turns a blind eye to that record. We’ll just have to do without stuff or recycle or pay more for stuff made by companies that pay their workers a living wage (or have suppliers of rare earth elements that aren’t mined with human blood, for instance.)

    You’re wrong about the chocolate (example: Seattle’s Theo brand chocolate is successful enough to have a museum that gives 7 day a week tours. (Eat their offering with chili in it, and you’ll start liking chocolate.) A lot more than 100 have switched to humanely produced ways to get their coffee/chocolate caffeine fixes, and a LOT of people need their caffeine fixes.

    ***
    Jordan, maybe you aren’t aware of the O.S.I.I.B.I.T.S.I folk because you’re a Canadian. The bumper stickers generally change character north of the border. I’m seeing WAAAAAAY fewer “End(less) This War” bumper stickers than I did before Obama was elected. If they think Iraq is over, they get that news from U.S. media rather than familiarity with the families whose relatives are on yet ANOTHER tour there. I know YOU know that, but a lot of OSIIBITSI DON’T know it, and WON’T know it because OSIIBTSI. They’ve peeled the dang bumper stickers right off their cars. They’ll be replacing them with OSIIBTSI bumper stickers in due time, I imagine.

    Well I’m tired. G.N.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Gotcha, Irene. I mistakenly thought you were referring to specific people.

    I do notice the sudden influx of political bumper stickers the second I cross the border into Washington state, mind you. It’s not something that’s part of our culture, so the signage and stickers was a big of a shock at first. A funny shock, of course, but a shock nonetheless.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Jordan, Kiva is one of the channels I intend to use to reach out to people. Don’t think it makes sense to set up another similar body at this stage.

    I would be interested to learn of your experiences with it so far.

  • zingzing

    “Is there someone in your state who has Kucinich-like ideas?”

    not that i know of. although there may be someone out there.

    “HECK no. You write letters, you phone in, you encourage others to do the same, you show up at their offices, you campaign for their opponents.”

    no! i will not campaign for their opponents. i know that was a typo. but i’m also going to have to live my life. i’ve emailed political figures and i’ve taken part in elections, but i’ll admit i haven’t made a life out of political opposition.

    “Maybe Kucinich is (or will be, if he runs) unelectable because you keep TELLING people that he’s unelectable.”

    gimme a break. he’s unelectable because of the opinions he holds. he knows this. i know this. if he could make a substantial run for the presidency, i’d vote for him. and if he does, i will. if it gets to the point where he is on a primary in my state, i WILL vote for him. and if he wins that primary, i’ll vote for him again. but this ain’t fantasia. i think it’s quite amazing he’s gotten as far as he has.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s been very good.

    We made a flat donation a few years back and have been able to loan and re-loan to quite a few entrepreneurs that have been able to set up local businesses in places like Sierra Leone, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and so on. The loans are almost always repaid, and in good time too, and the entrepreneurs report back with results that are very heartening.

  • troll

    …what an all around marvelously insulting thread — I blame the dialectic

    Chris – what are the end products of your online businesses?

    zing – I labeled you bc’s self appointed everyman in response to what I perceived to be gross over-reach…as you said at the time – I must have misunderstood you

    and btw – don’t vote…I’ve got this ongoing intuition about 30% voter turn and crises of delegitimization

    Cindy – it’s great to read your clear writing again

    and to all you liberals this is for you…and yes postindustrialism has added a layer of sophistry to everything since the 60s so its only an approximation of a stereotype

    (damned unorganized I tell ya — I once posted a video that included an anarchist critique of liberalism…very dark and damning

    I’ll rediscover/repost the link if possible)

  • troll

    oh yeah…hi Irene – Paul is a duchbag

    xxoo

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    171 –

    now that i am awake, zing…i realize my mistake in agreeing that i made crass generalizations…

    “i was talking about the liberal response to manning and assange.”

    i was talking about the liberal response to manning and assange in this thread! not in the world at large. you would have to have read, in posted order–my post on manning and then the response by particular liberals here to see that.

    and yes liberals do disagree amongst each other. still it is typical for liberals to support the ‘right’ way to do things, which generally means do it the way those in power demand it must be done. obey the law, etc.

    i am reminded when LSW (a woman named lisa) told me, here on bc–in complete denial of the fact that credit card banks were purposely raping and pillaging–that people should read ever word on their contract (of adhesion). she basically blamed those the banks prey on and seemed to think that what the banks were doing was just fine and business as usual.

    of course, some liberals also chain themselves to the fences around nuclear power plants.

    but i am talking here about the adjusted liberal… the one who teaches children to be good, obedient citizens and hard workers

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    i don’t make crass generalizations.

    Perhaps not, but Roger certainly did when he said that liberals supported hawkish foreign policy, torture, and the Patriot Act. You and I disagree when it comes to whether the Obama Administration is doing these things…

    …but AGAIN I’ll ask you – do you agree with Roger that liberals like myself (and any of the other BC liberals) support such policies? And if you believe we do, can you please point out an article or comment where any of us have supported such?

  • troll

    …kinda depends on what you mean by ‘support’ doesn’t it Glenn?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    She, too, is part of a privileged class.

    I agree, absolutely, and I have always maintained so, myself.

    Yet we’re asked, time and time again, to believe that they’ve been freed from the shackles of indoctrination and that they have a vastly different POV (one we privileged can’t possibly grasp) because they read different books than we did (or so they think). They share the right video clips, listen to the right lectures.

    They are free thinkers; we are propping up the system with our gluttony.

    I hate to break it to Cindy, even though I’ve been reduced to another class of person by the anarchist, but she’s not as “outside” the indoctrination as she thinks…

    Again, I am as much a product of indoctrination as anyone else–another thing I have always maintained. In fact, I believe I have on many occasions described how very difficult it is to challenge one’s indoctrinated pov. I have shared my own experiences of doing so and have regularly made clear that I am, by no means done. In fact, I have only just begun. Since I really only got started in September of 2007 and previously was a liberal–who campaigned for Obama, btw, So, I am but an egg (as my dear Uncle Ed would quote–i think it was–Stranger in a Strange Land?)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    and Cindy –

    Seeing how I tend to obsess until I get a proper response when accused falsely (it’s a long story), I will be asking this until I get a proper response from you.

    For instance, Roger made some crass accusations once (in that I only posted about race and that I only accepted one point of view). This was after I agreed with YOU that anarchism can work as you showed me that it can in Mexico. I included several links in my replies to Roger and I know he saw them – and I did this several times on different threads over the next several days. He never did reply.

    He didn’t reply because he didn’t have the courage to own up to the fact that he made a false accusation…and that’s part of the change that I see in Roger that so concerns me about him.

    But this accusation that I support hawkish foreign policy, torture, and the Patriot Act is another false accusation by Roger. Do you agree with Roger? Or will you step back and say hey, this is going a little beyond the pale?

    I look forward to your reply.

  • troll

    and isn’t the constructive question what we could be doing to decrease our support?

  • Jordan Richardson

    she basically blamed those the banks prey on and seemed to think that what the banks were doing was just fine and business as usual.

    I know the person you’re referring to, Cindy, and that’s an(other) unfair characterization of a “liberal’s” views. Not that I’m surprised, but perhaps you could criticize someone who still frequents the site.

    There are those of us who believe in obeying the law and working within the current structure to compel change. That doesn’t, as you frequently suggest, denote that we think the structure is fine. It means we think the structure is. It means we believe we can impact change on a greater scale through different “internal” means. It also means we have lives to live, mouths to feed, etc.

    There are those who believe that, yes, reading the “fine print” is a necessity in this day and age. That mindset doesn’t let credit card companies off the hook as you suggest, but it does take into account the absolutely necessary step of informing oneself in a day and age when companies are out to rip you the hell off. It’s given that this exists, so we fight back and defend ourselves simultaneously.

    I should add that I would absolutely teach my children to be “good citizens” because I think it’s important to be compassionate to fellow human beings – regardless of stripe or shade. That’s what I take a “good citizen” to mean. I would also teach my children to be “hard workers” because I believe in the value of respecting what you do and honouring others through what you can give. These values, to me, translate into fighting for what’s right, using the tools I have to win the fights I can win, and living life on a level that allows for fulfilment on a number of different levels – including the superficial and mundane.

    Anyway.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    troll –

    I invite you to show where I’ve supported hawkish foreign policy or torture at all. AT ALL, in word or in deed.

    When it comes to the Patriot Act, I’ve waffled back and forth on some of the provisions because not all provisions of the act were wholly evil. However, some of the provisions – like the one that took away our Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure – are very evil and I don’t support them. And we all heard the media say that the Patriot Act was extended…but what the media did not say was that only certain portions of the Patriot Act were extended.

    As you tried to point out, ‘support’ is not always an easy term to pin down…and as I just pointed out, not all questions are so black-and-white.

    And my question remains for Cindy.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cindy,

    Considering you admit to being that you are but an “egg” yourself, I wonder why it comes across that you have little sympathy or patience for those of us who are also, apparently, hatching.

    Or those of us who choose to hatch in another fashion, to march to yet another drummer.

    I’m honestly not trying to pick a fight. These aren’t, to me, mere diatribes (Roger can think that all he likes). I’m seriously and sincerely concerned (I always have been, even as troll here called me a “moron” a while back) about what I’m witnessing. I react with hostility because I sense it in kind from you, Roger and troll. I know my attitude doesn’t often help, but I feel that many of my legitimate questions go unanswered while the likes of you stomp all over the choices, lifestyles, creeds, desires, and designs of other posters who could truly use your compassion, tolerance, humility, and patience. My responses generally come from a sense of futility; I expect Roger to misread or misjudge me.

    I personally have felt alienated by a so-called activist culture that, like the Republican Party, looks more for a sense of ideological purity than togetherness, understanding and love. The result is a sort of indifference to these matters, I’m afraid, because I’m exhausted from combating this incessant need to categorize and judge based on those appointed categories. Liberals this, conservatives that, whatever. Here’s a funny song about how liberals are; here’s a show about how dumb conservatives are. That, to me, is indoctrination of another kind.

    I guess the point is if we’re all in the same boat, why can’t we be nicer to each other while we try to determine which direction to go? Why do some subset of people have to be “cockroaches” set for “extermination?” Why do others have to have a “pathology?”

    I found a few old comment threads when I was looking around here last night/this morning. I’ve been asking this exact set of questions of you guys for years. Kinda sad, isn’t it?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    howdy t, nice to see your typing, too :-) saw some of your relatives on youtube dancing to one of my favorite happy songs…

  • troll

    Glenn – our votes legitimize and our taxes fund our government’s policies — we are directly responsible individually and collectively

    while advocating a tax-strike could be an actionable seditious act let me suggest that you withhold your vote

  • troll

    Jordan – I called you a moron (using your word at the time) for falling in line and personalizing Rog’s attack on liberalism – as I said I hadn’t thought of you that way before so much

    …as if the statement that liberals are a great impediment to ‘true democracy’ necessarily had to be responded to as an affront rather than the opening of a critique by asking wtf he means

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Delicious thread, and yes, you’ve got the despicable Roger to thank for it. (What a megalomaniac? some of you will say.)

    I’ll return to some of the highlights after watching the Amy Goodman show. Ciao.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    No, it wasn’t a typo, ZingZing. You don’t have to spend your whole life campaigning for the “unelectable” candidate whose ideas you admire (the opponent of the pol whose ideas you DON’T admire.) You could…spend a little more of the time you typically spend in BC Politics defending his unpopular opinions.

    As-he*-who-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned-in-the-present-company-said:

    “Politicians don’t amount to much; ideas do.”

    *And I must say, troll (#210), I’ve yet to see a more unfortunate name for a purse company. Good day, sunshines. (To you, too, Cindy!)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Re: Manning and Assange — zing in #171 and 175 [and several other comments following those] is very close to my own ambivalent opinion. I am certainly not a cheerleader for holding anyone under harsh conditions.

    And I was one of the earliest, loudest voices on this web site concerning Guantanamo; in my review of the film Taxi to the Dark Side and in many comments during Dave Nalle’s appalling ‘anti-terror’ phase (before his anti-Obama phase).

    It’s the leap in logic to calling Obama “traitor to the people” I was objecting to. He’s very cautious on foreign policy, war policy, anti-terror policy, probably because he sees himself and his fellow Dems as politically vulnerable there. Cindy equates this with taking delight in war and torture.

    Maybe I’m naive, but I believe him when he says he wants/wanted to close Guantanamo. Congress outflanked him by forbidding the transfer of prisoners to US soil. The population has been reduced, and no new prisoners have been sent there. This still doesn’t satisfy me; I don’t believe it satisfies the president either; but it’s not something he can do unilaterally, by fiat.

    I respect Cindy’s moral outrage. But I think she could acknowledge the existence of nuance and realpolitik, and recognize the corrosive nature of over-the-top rhetoric.

    If Obama is “traitor to the people,” then what is Mitt Romney, who advocates expanding Guantanamo; or Mike Huckabee, who advocated the death penalty for Manning as soon as the story broke?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Handy!

    *GASP* You mean that Obama couldn’t just wave a magic wand and make it all better regardless of what the we-must-stop-Obama-in-everything-he-ever-does Republicans want? Heresy! Obama is all-powerful! That’s why he’s a traitor, because he didn’t wave his magic wand and repair our economy in the very first hour after he took the oath of office!

    Is it that, or are the Republicans simply just that insecure when they think about Obama’s, er, ‘magic wand’? “Fear of a Black Planet”, indeed!

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    219 –

    Jordan,

    I can’t answer all your questions, I can say a few things.

    1) I think that pathology is and accurate description. Some people have put the same point more palatably.

    2) I embarked on a mission to discover the depths of this pathology by examining mass quantities of what is happening in the world and what is not common and publicly in the forefront, but should be. Everything–from the US imperialist history (and that of every other nation) to slave child labor, to sexual objectification and slavery, from the depths of human suffering and hunger, to the psychological afflictions of modern humans, to the mass extinctions of species and irreparable destruction of coral reefs and over-fished seas spelled out the depths of the sickness that the current version of human society exhibits.

    3) It has disillusioned me to the core of my being, I cannot return to whence I came. And to hear the thrum of the typical defenses and arguments from people (who really are rarely seriously willing to struggle to see things they do not already see) became too much.

    4) What I saw made me angry. I have never been so angry. Though I know now it isn’t helping to be angry. I am forcing myself to get past it. It’s hard. I would like to move on to a more productive way of being. I hope, and lately I am pretty sure, it is just a stage I am going through and perhaps even a necessary one. I am working on it.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The world is pluralistic. It consists of massively multiple points of view and priorities.

    Thus everything in the real world is a compromise. Every political idea, every economic system, every decision.

    Absolutism and idealism can exist in our minds as goals to strive for. But to demand purity in everyone is to be awfully disappointed all or nearly all the time.

    And to declare anyone who is not an absolutist idealist to be a traitor or a pawn of evil is…well, it’s pointless. Because in the end we all have to live in actual, imperfect, compromised reality, and we have to do the best we can.

    That, I think, is part of what zing, Jordan, myself are trying to say.

  • troll

    we strive for a world of compromise…the real one is a world of starvation murder and other similar absolutes

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Cannon:

    what the hell was I saying?

    ooh! Shiny…

    LOL.

  • troll

    btw handyguy – who declared “anyone who is not an absolutist idealist to be a traitor or a pawn of evil” around here?

    is stawman construction part of the liberal curriculum these days?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    zing,

    you never had any reason to doubt that i did. you never had any reason to doubt that anyone doesn’t care. but that’s what you did. why?

    i never doubted that you care. i doubted that you realize that your solutions are a part of the problem and i doubt that you are as of yet willing to struggle with that possibility instead of defending yourself and accusing me of being a great big meanie.

    look at what i am telling you, take it seriously, set aside your already gelled opinions and struggle with fresh eyes that try to see it. find information that suggests i am telling you something useful and true instead of how what i am saying is flawed or over-the-top, or etc… what if what i am saying is true. how else would you discover it? test that theory. i dare you to care that much.

  • Cannonshop

    #230, when I re-read what I was going to post in the preview, I realized I’d completely and utterly forgotten what I wanted to say, and was too damn tired to force myself to remember, so I chopped it via deletion, and slapped an ending that would, I’d hoped, lighten the mood a bit.

    (as well as reflecting my mental condition after work yesterday-things did not go well there.)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    228 What has absolute idealism have to do with anything I have said?

    I have said that you are a part of the problem and you don’t see it. Nothing idealistic about that. It’s an assessment. I have said that the misery of the third world has been caused by those of us in the first world and our blind, indoctrinated ignorance.

    And a huge ditto for me on troll’s #229. Wake up handy, you are out of touch with what is the real world to most of the people in it.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Sorry if I skipped someone (maybe Glenn). I will try later, I have to get back to the real world, myself.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Fine. I give up. Y’all are indeed in some kind of alternate reality and speak the native language thereof. Any attempt to approach you gets a swift and dismissive “that’s irrelevant” accompanied by a hostile soupcon of “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    You are not really interested in a dialogue, just in someone who will agree with your three-way monologue. Condescending, endlessly hostile, meaningless.

  • troll

    …if that’s what you took away from my response then I give up also

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    PS: I am wide awake. Thanks very much for your concern.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Cindy’s idealism and loathing of capitalist society with its admitted multitude of faults and failings overlooks the fact that humans have been trying to improve their lot by manipulating their environment and natural social structures for at least the last 10,000 years.

    Everything we’ve tried has meant taking the rough with the smooth and hoping that the former outweighed the latter. Long ago, for example, an effort centred on the eastern Mediterranean led to the domestication of selected plants and animals, which meant those folks no longer had to worry about where the next meal was coming from but whose general health and longevity began to suffer from hard work and a less varied diet, not to mention that they had to band together in expensive, sedentary, fortified settlements to defend against other tribes and animals that still hunted and foraged for food.

    A few thousand years later, another effort centred on the Italian peninsula led to millions of Europeans, North Africans and Asians being able to enjoy the economic, technological and security benefits of the Roman Empire. The flip side was that Roman citizens had to put up with an oppressive political regime, rampant corruption, and human rights atrocities committed in the name of entertainment.

    Capitalism, anarchism or any other new sociopolitical system we try – and they all, even Nazism, start out with the intention of giving people a better life – are going to have negatives, some more serious than others, many of which are not and cannot be foreseen by those who set the system up.

    If you happen to be in the vanguard of the system, you’ll tend to think your life is better because of it; if you’re on the fringes, not so much. In that sense, the test of a “good” system is that there are more insiders than outsiders. But that’s largely a matter of perception.

    In a way, our biological species is “sick”, in that our superdeveloped brains want us all to live happily ever after and have no shortage of ideas on how to achieve that, but our bodies are still stuck wanting to nibble on berries, snarl at the band from the other side of the hill and run away from leopards.

    I suppose the only pure way would be to return to the hunter-gatherer life our ancestors on the east African savanna led, but even that has its deleterious aspects, notably those involving things with large sharp teeth.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just a number of observations. I’ll try to keep it impersonal, but I can’t entirely get around that because I have to invoke comments by specific individuals.

    (1) Glenn Contrarian — Contrarian to whom? one may legitimately asks — complains that I accused him personally for endorsing a militaristic state (such as the US has become and continues under the present administration), extraordinary renditions and enhanced interrogation techniques , policies which, BTW, continue unabated under the present,” liberal “administration. I haven’t done anything of the kind. That comment was spurted by Handy’s rather callous remarks concerning just desserts which are due to PFC Manning (because he broke the law), conveniently ignoring the conditions of deprivation under which that individual was held (in order to get to Assange), until there was sufficient public outcry against such methods, especially when directed by this government against its own citizens. Handy readily dismissed any analogy with breaking the law when on hehalf of a just cause (Civil Rights, gay right, etc.) , on the grounds that PFC Manning’s actions could potentially result in loss of innocent lives (a nice humanitarian ploy and the official line of this administration), but in reality, matters of national security outweigh for Handy any injustices this or any other administration might commit for the sake of that “ideal.” Well, they don’t for me. Handy’s characterization of Assange as a “sleazebag” — whom he sleeps with, etc. — is another indication of Handy’s commitment to national security as the overreaching goal which justifices injustices in the name of “the better good.” Only begrudgingly does Handy admit that some good may have come as a result of WikiLeaks. But enough on this.

    In a nutshell, my remarks were directed at Handy when I spoke of the “liberal mindset,” and the Contrarian (because of “guilt by associateion,” perhaps) felt I accesed him personally. But in reality, folks, this administration continues the same militaristc policies both abroad and at home — in the name of the War on Terror, of course –as the previous administration, while all the good liberals stand by; so yes, I have a right to speak of a “liberal mindset” and its hypocrisy in this extended semse. So implicitly at least, the Contrarian is guilty by implication, for not speaking out. If and when the Contrarian becomes a vocal critic of this administration for perpetuation the Bush legacy, then and only then he’ll be free of any taint in this regard. Until then, he remains guilty by conspiracy of silence. And no, gradualism, the Contrarian’s favorite escape hatch, doesn’t work here. There’s no such thing as “half-torture,” or torturing fewer and fewer people.

    (2) Mr. Zing complains that I used the royal “we” in the same way that he’s been known to do (in the past). If I have, I appologize. My intent was only to let him know there are other people as we;; who think along similar lines, not to bolster my argument by counting noses. Again, if I created that impression, I apologize.
    He also complains that I accused him of posing himself as Everyman. If I have, it was only in connection with his past attempts to chastize me, to tell me I was acting out of line, to make appeals to “popular opinion” or some such thing. But truly, I certainly hope Mr. Zing is nothing like Everyman. I certaintly don’t recognize his voice as being the voice of the people, the people who are suffering and hurting. If anything, his is a voice, again for the selct few, who are privileged enough and have time enough to participate on BC political forum. The people who are truly struggling and hurting don’t have time for such luxuries, and I’m willing to bet that the African-Americans and other people of color, people who have supported this president and got him elected, do not speak with the same voice as Mr. Zing.
    Am I the voice of the people? Of course not, for I too am privileged enough to be able to engage in such luxuries as BC political discussions. But I surely hope I’m closer to reflecting the voice of the people, their sentiment, than Mr. Zing does. Being a liberal or a conservative are privileged labels, even elitist, one may argue. The people out there don’t think of themselves in those terms. They haven’t the time.

    (3) Mr. Richardson suggested that I lay claims to originailty of thougt. I believe I corrected him on that score. He further suggested that I’m being unfair when I intmated (which perhaps I have) that other people are not struggling with their ideologies (and in trying to articulate their ideology). I don’t know wom exactly does Mr. Richardson mean by “other people,” but it is my general experience that most people, again for the reasons stated, simply have neither luxury nor the time. But perhaps Mr. Richardson is being more specific and means such people as himself, Mr. Zingzing, or Mr. Handy. (Notice, the Contrarian is excluded, though his writings are polemical for the most part. )

    Well, I have this to say in response. I’m not a mindreader and have no idea what’s going on behind closed doors, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I say. Mr. Richardson, Mr. Zingzing and Handy, each of them is an accomplished writer. If there were struggling with their ideologies, I would expect to see some articles by these authors in the Politics section as evidence of their struggle. Thus far, aside from voluminous comments, I’ve seen none. Not to detract from other vital interests, such as music, regarding which interests both Richardson and Zingzing sounded out in unison, if politics is truly their second love and obsession, why not submit an article now and then? Off-the-cuff comments are cheap, a finished article articulating one’s political philosophy is not because, in some sense, it must withstand the test of time. One must be more responsible for their words and meanings in a finished article, not to mention being able to deal with criticism, more so than what is required when posting a mere comment.

    Why am I excusing “troll” and Cindy from this requirement? Anyone with sense enough should recognize that Cindy is always struggling with her views. “Troll” is a special case in that most of his comments are loaded, always food for thought. Indeed, even in Archie I see evidence of struggle, of gropping with new positions and ideas, an arch. Sorry to say, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Zingzing, Mr. Contrarian and Mr. Handy, but I don’t see it in you. If I were to revisit your comments on politics from three years ago, they wouldn’t be any different than what they are today. Correct me if I am wrong. Show me in what respect your political views have changed over these years.

    (4) There is also a general complain that I am not really saying anything, that all my ideas are a pie in the sky, that I can’t point to specific and concret applications. Well, perhaps I can and perhaps I cannot. At any rate, this is neither the time nor the place to answer these charges. Let me state this, however. Unless you come to a realization that both capitalism and the state, yes, even our democratic, welfare state, are equally exploitative and equally tyrannical, you’re operating within a failed paradigm. You may disagree with these assumptions, and that’s your right, but for as long as you do, you can’t think outside the box. That’s the first step.

    Mr. Zingzing accuses me I have it all figured out. I wish I had. There is one thing, however, I did figure out. The state and capitalism both are the enemy of the people. The people are more important to me than our present economic and political order.

    Power to the people!

    (5) Lastly, a note to Jet. Why don’t you call me “darling,” darling? I won’t object provided you leave Cindy out of it.

  • troll

    (Dreadful – …I doubt that Cindy overlooks all that interesting stuff)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Dreadful, just noted your comment. In response, I can do no better than cite troll’s comment from another thread:

    …and then there’s your ‘evolution’/’revolution’ distinction

    both terms describe processes of social change that cannot be denied and which yield only relative stability…thus what would your evolutionary political stability be without the occasional mercantile industrial or information revolution leading to changes in political forms?

    (there is some speculation out there that the property relations required by capitalism will be unable to survive the last mentioned revolt – which is leading to new productive (and political) relations…maybe good; maybe bad – but the ball keeps bouncing)

    ——————————–

    So my question is, why do you assume that with the liberal-democracy/capitalist system we’ve reached the zenith of our political and social development? Just as feudalism once gave way to the capitalist mode of production and monarchy to a form of parliamentary/representative democracy, why all of a sudden should time stand still, and the possibility of evolving a more equitable and just society and form of government be precluded, on your view of things, from the forces of historical development?

    Just wonder.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Re: 240-5 Dont get your hopes up Roger, I’m not that easy

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    You need help. Something happened to you, and you need the opportunity to sit back and really look at whatever it is that forced such a change on you. What I see above is not the Roger I knew, the one who used to post dignified comments, and I’m not the only one saying it.

    Half the battle is understanding what the problem is. I you don’t know what the problem is, then you’ve lost already. You need to find out what really happened, and that’s when you can start on the road back to real respectability.

    Remember, none of us here are idiots. When constructive criticism is given to you, it would be wise for you to at least sit back and consider whether such criticism might be worth taking seriously.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Nothing about #240 that wasn’t “dignified.” You cried uncle in that I attacked you personally. Whether I succeeded in convincing you it wasn’t so, I don’t know, but I tried.

    But I do thank you for your input, as usual.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    So my question is, why do you assume that with the liberal-democracy/capitalist system we’ve reached the zenith of our political and social development?

    Where did I say or even imply that?

  • Baronius

    The tone of Roger’s comments is identical to what it’s always been, Glenn; it just happens that now the firehose is blasting in all directions.

  • troll

    geeze – how typical is that?

    Rog gets radicalized and therefore ‘needs help’

    Mr N – we’re quite sure that if you allow us to burn out a few synapses here and there and chase the procedure with a bit of phenobarb and thorazine we’ll be able to return you to rational argument and relatively productive citizenship

    now if you’ll just sign here admitting your need for treatment and giving us access to your family’s assets we can begin

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The ideas Roger expresses and the hostility with which he expresses them [and sometimes he expresses only the hostility without the ideas] are two different things.

    It does get awfully wearisome being told over and over again that I am the problem with the world [I imagine Glenn and zing feel the same].

    It’s not even an argument you can answer. Different people have different beliefs. We should be able to discuss them without resorting to apocalyptic rhetoric and personalized hostility.

  • troll

    …and shyte

    normally a bit of therapeutic weeding a bit of wallowing in my steaming mudbath and spicing up my bullshit stew is enough to get me beyond comments like your 236 handyguy – but not this time so:

    first – I didn’t give you a swift and dismissive “that’s irrelevant” but rather pointed out that your description has reality standing on its head (to borrow a phrase)

    and second I didn’t accompany my comment with a hostile soupcon of “you don’t know what you’re talking about” but rather with the observation that your use of a strawman implied that you don’t know who you’re talking to

    and your ‘no desire for debate but only for agreement’ comes across as projection

    your mileage varies obviously

  • Jordan Richardson

    Mr. Richardson suggested that I lay claims to originailty of thougt

    Nope, I didn’t. You criticized ME for not having an “original thought.” I returned the criticism in kind.

    I would expect to see some articles by these authors in the Politics section as evidence of their struggle.

    Don’t assume that Blogcritics is the only forum in which I post, Roger. My contributions at this site have dropped considerably, but as I’ve been pointing out relentlessly I’ve posted a number of articles in Politics over the years I’ve been here. That you continue to ignore those contributions is your problem.

    if politics is truly their second love and obsession, why not submit an article now and then?

    I have written more political articles than you have, Roger. So get off this rhythm already, will you?

    Just as a quick refresher:

    Obama’s Latest U-Turn

    Or maybe you’d prefer Domesticating Torture Creates New Jobs.

    Or my review of Chomsky’s recent book. Notice you and Cindy exiting the conversation as I raise a cogent point about, hmmm, LABELLING!

    A Chomsky quote from that thread, just as another refresher: “today’s anarchism…is extremely scattered, highly sectarian, so each particular group is spending a great deal of his time attacking some other tendency…”

    You guys didn’t like that much, I guess. You either insult or leave when that happens, it seems. The difference is that I could look back three years ago and you wouldn’t be doing that kind of thing. Your politics would be different; if I recall, I was way ahead of you in criticizing the president on issues like foreign policy and trade, while you were still kicking around in your jammies hoping for the best. You may think you passed me on the left-hand side, Roger, but I’m miles up the road. Believe I’m a “liberal” all you want, but you know you’re wrong.

    Or what about Tiananmen Square: 20 Years Later?

    I could go on. I could post my article on the Mavi Marmara. Or on “Ecology and Socialism.” Or on Barack Obama’s visit to China. Or…

    You get the picture.

    If I were to revisit your comments on politics from three years ago, they wouldn’t be any different than what they are today

    Baloney. But then again, you don’t think I’ve actually written any articles on the subject, so why would I expect your assertion of my comments to be anything less than the same inane stumbling?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cindy, thank you for your comment. I understand and relate to all of your very clear-cut points. I think if you look back through the years, you’ll find that the two of us are at points of agreement far more often than you may believe now.

    I’m just as angry as you are – if not more so. The difference between us appears to be in specifics, but I would rather align and collaborate than divide and conquer. The Chomsky quote in my ramble in #251 is accurate to many movements, I believe. There has to be something that can be done to improve that and, from my standpoint, I don’t see much of that improvement occurring here.

    That sentiment is being echoed by handyguy, zingzing, Glenn, and others, but the same group is being brushed aside time and time again. You simply can’t tell someone that they’re an “obstacle to democracy” (I’m not saying “you” said it specifically) and expect them to hear you out with humility.

  • Jordan Richardson

    …as if the statement that liberals are a great impediment to ‘true democracy’ necessarily had to be responded to as an affront rather than the opening of a critique by asking wtf he means

    Did it ever occur to you that there are other, better ways to butter the bread than that? MOST people are going to respond to a hostile remark with hostility.

    And MOST people are going to take the whole “you’re a moron” spiel in kind.

    You’re not that shitty a communicator, are you Mark?

  • troll

    …and your comments leading up to the ‘moron situation’ were free of insults – right?…there was no tit for tat was there?

    you’re not such an self-blind egoist are you Jordan?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    troll, my 236 was mostly directed at Cindy. But then she did cite you as backup. If it’s important for you folks to believe liberals are the enemy, go right ahead. But don’t pretend you’re actually interested in anything so mundane [and non-polemical] as a conversation or a discussion. It might be mildly interesting to see where your half-assed rhetoric goes if we get a President Perry next year. But I certainly hope we don’t have to actually find out.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #249

    The hostility you’re accusing me of is in your own head, Handy. I have gone on record saying you have valuable contributions to make, and if I haven’t, I’m saying so now. But not as long as you and Glenn (see his last post) remain on the defensive, reactive stance.

    I’ve done nothing but characterize your response to a singular issue, concerning PFC Manning. If my analysis or understanding of your position misses the mark, just say so and tell me where I was wrong. Instead, you’re personalizing the whole issue and call me hostile. Is this the same Handy who calls for getting beyond personalities and discussing ideas instead?

    My question still stands. If my admittedly somewhat of a caricature still stands, correct me where exactly I’m wrong. And yes, caricature it had to be to make a point. So yes, I issued it as a form of challenge. But that’s not hostility exactly, is it?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thank you Jordan for providing references to your own political writings.

  • Jordan Richardson

    and your comments leading up to the ‘moron situation’ were free of insults – right?…there was no tit for tat was there?

    Never claimed they weren’t and never put myself above the problem, Mark. I’d like you to point out when I did.

    What I’m saying is that it creates a climate, no matter who’s at fault. You act as though we should calmly ask Roger what he means when he’s already created a discourse of disdain and contempt with his words.

    You can’t seriously wonder why many around here diminish your contributions to mere rhetoric, can you? When 90 percent of what you say can be reduced to clever ists or isms (“egoist?” seriously?), it’s hard to venture into the other 10 without a helmet or some form of protection. We’re not all so easy to box as all that, though. Sorry.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “It might be mildly interesting to see where your half-assed rhetoric goes if we get a President Perry next year.”

    It mightn’t be such a bad thing as you imagine. Much of the political back and forth is cyclical. Perhaps we haven’t hit the bottom yet, and if we haven’t, perhaps we should. In any case, it mightn’t be such bad thing to experience the devil in order to develop real desire for the good. Perhaps the “Obama experiment” is premature. The people aren’t ready.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    That’s what you’re not getting. My last post was not defensive or even reactive. Why? Because it’s off the subject of the argument itself (which was political in nature), and posted with the intent not to hurt or score points or in any way ‘get back’, but to help.

    You ask us where you’re wrong – you already know that handy and I see things from a stance of realpolitik, and there is absolutely NO way that Manning could have realistically thought that that what he was doing wouldn’t do very real harm to America and get good and innocent Americans killed. That’s why I have no professional sympathy for him, and that’s why you’re wrong about Manning.

    And when it comes to hostility, did you not refer to zing and myself as “the greatest obstacle to democracy”? Is that not hostile?

    Worst of all, when we show you quite clearly what you are doing wrong, you refuse to see it.

    I say again, Roger – you’ve changed, and not for the better. Something major happened in your life and you’re allowing it to change you and your outlook on the world. You’re too intelligent not to see this, and I’d like to be able to call you ‘friend’ once more.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The disdain and contempt is in your own head, Jordan. (Only with respect to Zing, I admit, I allowed myself to stoop so low.) But it is you, and Handy, who chooses to personalize it. And once we get to that level, yes, I too happen to succumb though I should know better.

    I was speaking of a “liberal mindset,” a mindset reflective of Handy’s position on PFC Manning, etc, the imperialistic policies, and so on and so forth. Why on earth would you want to identify yourself with this insanity? Why would Handy? Why would Glenn or Zing? The answer that the conservatives are worse is no answer, you know it, every intelligent thinking person should know it. And so I ask, why identify yourself with a losing position? I still don’t understand. But I understand one thing. Once you do, I’m going to challenge you. It’s you, not I, who have made it personal.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Glenn, stop giving me personal advice and I assure you, we’ll get along far better.

  • Jordan Richardson

    The disdain and contempt is in your own head, Jordan

    No, it fucking isn’t. SEVERAL people have made similar claims against you, Roger.

    When you make PERSONAL ATTACKS, it’s personal. When you tell me that I’m saying what I’m saying because I’m not “living my life to its fullest,” that’s fucking personal!

    I keep my comments to your words on this page and you’ve torn into every aspect of my personal life, from what I do to where I live. You’ve made attacks on my person, time and time again, when I criticize your approach on these pages.

    Are you really that dense? No.

    More to the point, I’ve never “identified myself” as a fucking liberal. I don’t have a fucking “liberal mindset” and never said I did. You have. You continue to do so, no matter what I say or do.

    But whatever, it’s my fault. You’re a blameless angel from on high here to give us all a “breath of fresh air.”

    I’m done. This is too ridiculous to want to spend any more time on it.

  • Clavos

    @# 248:

    Best (and funniest) comment of this entire thread…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I have published 54 articles on BC. Most were movie reviews, at least 3 or 4 of which had strong political content, especially my reviews of The Power of Nightmares and Taxi to the Dark Side . And a few were political articles.

    One of the best, composed entirely of questions, was called Is the ‘War on Terror’ a Myth?. Feel free to take a look.

    I don’t like being caricatured by people who know little about me. Who would?

  • troll

    You can’t seriously wonder why many around here diminish your contributions to mere rhetoric, can you?

    what makes you think that I wonder about this or care how the many that you refer to diminish my contributions Jordan?

    there is no expectation or requirement that anyone slog through my comments

    (and yes seriously – egoist)

    if you review the original thread you’ll find that my effort was to depersonalize the issue

  • Jordan Richardson

    what makes you think that I wonder about this or care how the many that you refer to diminish my contributions Jordan?

    Blind hope.

    You can’t “depersonalize” the issue. Politics IS personal.

  • troll

    …that explains your incessant insults I guess

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There it is in a nutshell, Jordan, and you’re capitalizing it too: SEVERAL people, you say.

    I don’t give a fuck about several people, or but a few, whatever the number. I put a question to you and to no one else but you. And this is all you’re capable of by way of response?

    You know what you had better be done because I’m not going to waste my time on you anymore, not when all you’re capable of is throwing up a tantrum.

    And what do you mean, BTW, by criticizing “my approach.” You don’t like my bedside manners, my lack of tact, my speaking my mind? And since you’re not a liberal, as you claim, then why didn’t you take objection to Handy’s callous remarks regarding Manning, Assange and WikiLeaks?

    Yes, I am that dense, Jordan. Your failure to speak up, yes, even against your friends, especially when they’re in the wrong, is as damning in my eyes as though you were giving your assent. Sorry, I’m not going to cut you any slack here.

  • Jordan Richardson

    …that explains your incessant insults I guess

    Hardly “incessant,” but yes it does explain the hostility. That’s what I’ve been saying for 591229420 comments now.

    When you tell someone who deeply cares about democracy or the plight of the disenfranchised that they’re obstacles, they’re not going to take it like a disconnected individual if they’re the least bit human.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Politics IS personal.”

    It shouldn’t be if we think of politics as art? Is the same true of morality?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Tell that to Aristotle.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Roger, my “failure to speak up” may have something to with the fact that you think all of my posts are “tantrums.” It may also have something to do with the fact that I don’t spend every waking hour here discounting what others say so as to ensure my line in the sand is clearly carved.

    That doesn’t give you the right to simply lump me in where you please, however.

    And since you’re not a liberal, as you claim, then why didn’t you take objection to Handy’s callous remarks regarding Manning, Assange and WikiLeaks?

    Because I don’t need to. I re-asserted what he said about Assange, left the rest alone. Why? Because I don’t care enough. I don’t have to fight every battle, neither do you.

    I don’t give a fuck about several people, or but a few, whatever the number. I put a question to you and to no one else but you. And this is all you’re capable of by way of response?

    I know. That’s why I continue to put it to you: why come here if you don’t care about these people? I come to Blogcritics because I’ve found a sense of community here and because I write here. I wouldn’t come here if I only cared about a few people or if I could just depersonalize and move on. There are a million other fish in the sea, but we’re all here presumably for a reason. For some, it’s a sense of belonging and camaraderie.

    Politics forums and postings across the Internet are among the most hostile, vicious threads you’ll ever find. Ours is no exception. When you’re accusing people and criticizing their politics, you are criticizing their person. That’s something I need to work on, as I’ve admitted several times. But I also think it’s something you need to work on, Roger.

    Is that really such an unlikely, crazy point for me to make? Do you really see yourself as perfect?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Politics is not “art.” It is not some issue you can approach with clinical disconnect, as you so dream.

    It is how people put food on the table, how they approach their co-workers and family members, how they go through the day, how they choose their meals and entertainment. It is in everything because it is in the way we, as a group, make decisions. It is in our social relations, in our concepts of power and dominance.

    For Cindy, the anger she feels over issues of politics and world affairs exists because she takes it personally. It is not art.

    As to morality, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is morality art? Of course not.

    You may think you’re just sitting here batting around concepts as a way to make a pretty picture, but to other people, people like Glenn who really loves democracy and really tries to live a good life helping the “least of these,” your words that assert the contrary are taken deeply to the core of his being. Why do you think he’s repeating the same question looking for an answer? Because he’s hurt by the inference that he would support the things you say he does, that’s why.

    But you don’t think of that, do you? You just bitch and moan about my “tantrums” because you don’t understand that this shit is deeply personal to me. What you experiment with through articles, lectures and the like, I live. What you recite with philosophical constructs, I breathe.

    So yeah. I swear, insult, complain, rant, go off on tangents. I’m a human being, flawed and bullshitty like the rest of us. And that makes me pretty fucking happy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Again, Jordan, you didn’t have to identify yourself a liberal, as I used the term. Why on earth are you so vested? I should think each of you is an individual. Do you really need a label?

    So where did you get the idea I was attacking you when I addressed the hypocritical liberal mindset as exemplified by the continuation of Bush’s policies by the present, “liberal” administration?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I should think each of you is an individual. Do you really need a label?

    I’ve been saying this for days now, Roger. You’ve been carrying on about “liberals this, liberals that” for ages.

    So where did you get the idea I was attacking you when I addressed the hypocritical liberal mindset as exemplified by the continuation of Bush’s policies by the present, “liberal” administration?

    When did this happen?

    Shit, I wrote the “Obama’s U-Turn” article to assert that very point. Why would I think you were attacking me for stating what I stated years ago?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Of labels, you just said “if you’re not a liberal, why didn’t do you _____.”

    How dare you then assert “I should think of each of you as an individual” if you’re assigning a position on Assange, Manning, etc. to “liberals.” Where the hell is the individuality in that?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Roger, please stop mischaracterizing my views on Manning to hammer home your repetitive but inaccurate point. See #225, where I spelled it out for you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cool, Jordan. But don’t you think we can all agree at least on what ought to be overriding, overarching principles? And by the same token, can’t we also be critical of governments and policies that aren’t true and in fact violate those principles? Saying that one political party has a better record than the other, Glenn’s standard response, doesn’t cut it, does it? Aren’t we all obligated, as thinking and conscious human beings, to demand the best from our government and the elected officials, rather than keep on engaging in excuses and apologia, yes, even if our demands aren’t likely to be met?

    Well, sorry to say, but I haven’t seen that from either Handy or Glenn, not even Zing. All I hear is a cynical view, that this is the best of all possible worlds, and they all leave it at that. Sorry, I don’t hear it even from you.

    Well, that’s not good enough for me. Even if my voice doesn’t amount to jack shit, it is my obligation, as a thinking and conscious human being, to speak out against injustices when and where I see them. Others can offer excuses, I will not.

  • Jordan Richardson

    But don’t you think we can all agree at least on what ought to be overriding, overarching principles?

    We can work toward some kind of accord on that score, of course. But I don’t see that happening in this climate.

    can’t we also be critical of governments and policies that aren’t true and in fact violate those principles?

    Of course. This is something I’ve done “incessantly,” I would say. I don’t view anyone, left or right, as being completely uncritical of their government.

    Saying that one political party has a better record than the other, Glenn’s standard response, doesn’t cut it, does it?

    Not in every instance. I’ve criticized him on that very token. But sometimes the shoe fits and Glenn’s response, something I don’t view as “token” at all,” is apt.

    Aren’t we all obligated, as thinking and conscious human beings, to demand the best from our government and the elected officials, rather than keep on engaging in excuses and apologia, yes, even if our demands aren’t likely to be met?

    Yes, absolutely. I don’t see anyone here continually apologizing for this government, though. I think that’s a mischaracterization and an exaggeration.

    I haven’t seen that from either Handy or Glenn, not even Zing.

    I have, numerous times. If you’re not seeing that, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Sorry, I don’t hear it even from you.

    Then you aren’t reading my articles or comments properly, Roger. I’ve been consistently critical of this government and, indeed, of ALL governments.

    Even if my voice doesn’t amount to jack shit, it is my obligation, as a thinking and conscious human being, to speak out against injustices when and where I see them. Others can offer excuses, I will not.

    Good. It is your obligation. The problem arises when you don’t see Glenn, handyguy, zingzing, myself, and anyone else as doing the same. You think you’re the only one. You’re not.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    OK, Handy, though I still think you’re hedging somewhat. Whether you approve of it or not is not really (anymore) in question; this administration more than approved of it, they’ve done it.

    Is Obama a “traitor to the people.” Not my words but we’ve been there already. Has he reneged on many of his campaign promises? You bet! You may choose not to hold him responsible and appeal to my or Cindy’s lack of appreciation of “nuance” when it comes to RealPolitik and that’s your business. Well, I do hold him responsible. It is perhaps your making excuses that I really find more objectionable than anything else.

    Nuff said.

  • troll

    …you know Jordan on second thought you’re correct…I’d pretty much withdrawn from bc pending lent before this whole liberal vrs true democracy thing and shouldn’t have become involved muddying the waters with my views – Rog can take care of himself

    hope you guys can work out some rapprochement

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m going to follow suit, except for my own thread. Everyone knows where to find me.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I guess that’s that, then.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Not necessarily, Jordan. When Roger says he’s done for good, it usually only means for the next half hour.

  • STM

    By now, shouldn’t this thread be renamed: “Dealing With Obama Fatigue Fatigue”.

    It’s turned into one of those wonderful BC gibberfests in which everyone falls into a never-ending circular argument as the thread morphs into the internet equivalent of the single-lost-sock/old mattress vortex. And Rog might be best served here by choofing off briefly for a nice cup of tea and a good lie down.

  • STM

    This is why America will never be truly great … it hasn’t discovered the reasorative properties of tea, preferring instead to waste vaste quantities of perfectly good precious leaf by tipping it into a harbour.

    This has set the tone for an entire history …

  • STM

    Make that “restorative”. I need a cup of tea.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    G’day, Stan. Not sure it would help Roger, because Americans have never really grasped what a perfect peacemaker a good cup of tea really is. They just use it to silt up their harbours with instead.

    But there’s a reason so many different cultures have developed a reverence for it and elaborate ceremonies and rituals based around it.

    You, being an Aussie, of course understand, but I had the greatest difficulty earlier convincing my American wife that a nice hot cuppa was the perfect refresher on a hot summer evening. She thought I was bats.

  • STM

    Does she get in now, though, Doc??

    It’s a simple thing: It raises core body temp slightly, almost imperceptibly, so your body feels cooler without you realising it.

    Water of course is a must in a hot climate and lots of it, and while cold drinks are good, but they only feel like they’re working.

    You soon go back to feeling klike you need another one, which of course is the reason Aussies drink so much ice-cold beer.

  • STM

    I’m a bit tired Doc. I was on the eau-de-cologne last night for a couple of hours, speaking to a Mexican.

    Couldn’t understand a word the bastard was saying. Que?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Does she get in now, though, Doc??

    Not really, although I do make a mean cuppa if I say so myself and she does appreciate them when I make them. She just finds the whole hot day/hot tea thing a bit unfathomable.

    I’d make her one now, only I’m in Fresno and she’s 350 miles away in San Diego, where she’s moved for work. I’ll hopefully join her before too long, although this isn’t exactly the best economic climate to go jobhunting in so I’m holding on to the one I’ve got for now.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I’m a bit tired Doc. I was on the eau-de-cologne last night for a couple of hours, speaking to a Mexican.

    Not our mutual friend the dodgy used boat salesman from Miami?

    Couldn’t understand a word the bastard was saying.

    I’ve always found him refreshingly plain-spoken, myself. :-)

  • STM

    I’ll give the nod to that, he is. It’s the accent, Doc. I find American accents hard to understand. Yanks talk funny.

  • STM

    Imagine if you had to live there …

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Yeah. Thank goodness. ;-)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I find it amusing when Brits [and Australians, and the Irish] retch at the thought of iced tea.

    As a Southerner, I can drink it by the gallon.

  • Clavos

    I’m a bit tired Doc. I was on the eau-de-cologne last night for a couple of hours, speaking to a Mexican.

    Couldn’t understand a word the bastard was saying. Que?

    Pues, aprendete el español, hombre, puesto que yo no hablo strine.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The eau de cologne??

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Rhyming slang, Handy.

  • Clavos

    For telephone…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Stan –

    This is why America will never be truly great … it hasn’t discovered the reasorative properties of tea, preferring instead to waste vaste quantities of perfectly good precious leaf by tipping it into a harbour. This has set the tone for an entire history …

    You might be on to something, seeing as how China is set to take the mantle of world leadership….

  • STM

    Handy (Glenn, Clav, Doc, et al),

    I LOVE iced tea. This place is one of the hottest joints in the world (well, temp wise). A nice big iced tea doesn’t go astray every now and then. I’ve been having once almost every lunchtime lately.

    Here’s how it goes in my world: Morning, coffee; mid-morning, latte; lunchtime, iced tea; mid-arvo, nice cuppa tea; early evening, latte; night, nice cuppa tea.

    Gotta mix it up, dudes.

    I used to replace every single one of those with beer, but not anymore.

    Sadly …

  • zingzing

    Here’s how it goes in my world: Morning, coffee; mid-morning, bloody mary; lunchtime, coffee; mid-arvo, coffee; early evening, beer; night, negroni.

  • STM

    Yes, like …

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    Very interesting thread. Just imagine if you passionate folk directed your energies towards accomplishing a common goal, and I think you could agree on at least one, rather than focusing on and nit-picking slight differences. Anyone up for a challenge?

    What I don’t understand are those who think not voting is going to accomplish anything other than getting people you dislike the most elected. Isn’t it the people currently running the system who are the corrupt ones rather than the system being itself being corrupt?

    Seems rather easy to gain satisfaction if doing nothing is your plan because it takes no effort to accomplish your goal, but from the history I have read, and granted I make no claim to be a scholar, what revolution won with that tactic?

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    The only dependable voters are Right-wing religious nuts taken there by the church bus loads; transportation paid for and provided by the teabagger express.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Nitpicking slight differences…I wish it were.

    Glenn,

    I am all for liberals who engage in civil disobedience. I am all for challenging the oppressor. If liberals stuck to that value and took direct action, we would be compañeros.

    I need you to join me. Give up fighting conservatives. Give up making marches of 10,000 people that no one sees (that was the march on the pentagon, a liberal production I joined in on). Let’s take 10,000 people and refurbish some inner city houses. Let’s paint and dig gardens.

    It is when liberals break the law that I love them best.

    But when liberals teach children to e good citizens and obey because they have fallen for that themselves. Well, that is where I draw the line.

    The world is what it is because the people in it do what they do. Despite what they want to do or think they do or think they oppose/fight. It is what it is precisely because of what the people in it are doing right now.

    If you want to change the world, you need to do something else.

    xxoo

  • Clavos

    Heh. I see you’ve also installed the keyboard for español, Cindy.

  • troll

    What I don’t understand are those who think not voting is going to accomplish anything other than getting people you dislike the most elected. Isn’t it the people currently running the system who are the corrupt ones rather than the system being itself being corrupt?

    I advocate not voting because imo the system itself is closed corrupt and corrupting and will not be fixed by electing ‘the good guys’ as this last presidential election made clear…again

    Seems rather easy to gain satisfaction if doing nothing is your plan because it takes no effort to accomplish your goal,

    not voting is a political act of civil disobedience – one of many possible

    but from the history I have read, and granted I make no claim to be a scholar, what revolution won with that tactic?

    I laid out a simple and scalable ‘positive’ approach to ‘revolution’ in our last exchange…there are others — for examples see Patel’s reporting on commoning or the work that the Z folks are up to

    our political system is bought and paid for — structural political change will accompany changes in our productive relationships

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Howdy, mi amigo. :-)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Ah…make that mi(?) amigos. :-)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Not sure if the pronoun has to agree (at this point).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, your #308 has got to be the comment of the year.

    On a side note, I’m rather surprised by LB’s comment. I find it positive. I didn’t know he cares.

  • Clavos

    Cindy,
    Yes, the pronoun must agree, thus:

    singular: mi amigo/a (as you had it)

    plural: mis amigos/as

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Sir Max

    gracias very mucho :-)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ cindy

    ahem…

  • troll

    …enlightenment through the consumption of fair trade chocolate

    sounds good

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ cindy

    ‘Enlightenment’–isn’t that something you buy?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Only in tablet form and the effects are strictly temporary!

    ;-)

  • troll

    erp…got my audiences mixed up – social transformation and the end of sexist domination through the consumption of fair trade chocolate

  • http://findingourdream.blogspot.com/ Hal Horvath

    Since Obama is hard to pin down, people largely project their unacknowledged sides onto him. Typically, when we hear a characterization of Obama, it tells us a lot about the person making the characterization, and little or nothing about Obama.