Correspondence

Ernest, this is really well thought-out and the thought patterns/modus operandi you have identified on both sides is right-on.

One suggestion I would have to add ,to anyone who says "it's just opinion, and who's to say who is right or wrong" is that it's not just about beliefs. In the end, it's about the impact on society. And that cannot be argued.

Example: The police breaking in to the homes of Iowan flood victims and arresting anybody who objects. That's the Patriot Act at work, allowing the police to enter without knocking, without warrant and without probable cause.

People on both sides, looking at the Patriot Act as it stands alone, absent any follow-through on the part of the police, might say "well, see, there's a reason for it having been drafted. They need it now to protect us from terrorists". And that could be their "opinion" and "nobody can say what's right or wrong".

But these people also aren't seeing ahead what the outcome will be. And whatever that outcome is would certainly "Never happen to me/you/here on my turf".

Witness the now nearly 1 million people on no-fly lists, including babies and Democrats in office, and mostly comprised of politically vocal people....because their name matches someone else's on the terrorist d-base.

Witness the FBI serving National Security Letters based on self-certified good faith (Patriot Act grants the FBI unilateral powers to subpoena, arrest and search)....200,000 of these NLS's were served between 2003-2006, 53% of them for Americans. Contrast that with the dozen or so per year, as the norm prior to passage of the Patriot Act.

Is this all just a matter of "opinion"? Can anybody argue that this is wrong?

Based on living next door to the Iron Curtain and having seen lives threatened for free speech, I have to adamantly disagree with anybody who is frankly wishy-washy enough to say "it's just opinion and nothing is right or wrong". There really is such a thing as black and white, and it's very important to have boundaries around it. Lacking such recognition of the red flags, we are doomed.

Such is the current history of post-911 America and the reason why We, the People are frankly allowing it to happen. Because of innocent assertions and thoughts in our heads, such as "it's only an opinion and there is no right/wrong", we lack assertion and hence the fascist stick-up of the Constitution and the American people.

Time to broadcast the concerns about the outcomes even more vigilantly than before.

Kathryn Smith (7/1)
OpEdNews

The article is very good, but it avoids the primary question? What is the goal of the political argument. And the goal has nothing to do with logic. It is power and comfort. Ernest's antagonist does not care for the right answer because thaat answer does not make him comfortable and does not bring him power in his perception. Bush appeals to him. That is all.

I am sorry but logic avoids some people and that 'some' is an overwhelming majority and not only those who claim to be conservatives.

Mark Sashine (7/1)
OpEdNews

Love this piece

I just had an argument with a friend last night on global warming. He said the science wasn't in yet...it was a natural occuring swing yadatada. The same old spin jpbs coming from oil funded research scientists and right wing whack jobs. He wasn't interested in the conclusions of the union of concerned scientists an org of 1,500 of the world's best scientist, etc.

I am beginning to learn that the best way to deal with these folks is not to argue and it may be prudent to be better armed when the time comes. They're whacko's.

The Fifth Horseman (7/1)
OpEdNews

A very fine article, indeed! But I fear you missed the fallacy most beloved by the right, and most effective: Argumentum Ad Hominem. This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. And it just feels so right! We should not believe Ralph Nader because he is a fringe candidate. We should not believe the 911 truthers because they are conspiracy theorists. We should not believe Ernest Partridge because he is a radical leftist. These arguments hold great sway over conservative voters, but they in no way address the arguments put forth by the people attacked. The idea of the argument stands upon its own evidence and premises, apart from the question of who made the argument, and it is the argument that must be rebutted, not the man. Even if the objectionable concept is proffered by a lying, thieving, murderous scumbag; those character flaws are irrelevant to whether the scumbag's idea is true or false.

W.M.L. (7/1)
OpEdNews

Selected Responses to Ernest Partridge's essay from The Smirking Chimp

A well reasoned article on the importance of facts, logic and validity in regard to how to deal with people for whom facts, logic, and validity mean nothing. Talk about beating your head against a wall.

Everything you need to know about the irrationality that drives the conservative mind can be gleaned from reading Without a Doubt by Ron Suskind or review Stephen Colbert's introduction of "Truthiness."

In short, using reason on people who have abandoned reason is about as useful as bringing a catcher's mit to a game of tennis.

Spudboy

In "The Way of All Flesh", first published over 100 years ago, British gadfly Samuel Butler defined this type of mind perfectly, and hilariously. From the first paragraph of Chapter 15, which describes a rural Anglican congregation:

"...They were chiefly farmers -- fat, very well-to-do folk, who had come some of them with their wives and children from outlying farms two and three miles away; haters of popery and of anything which any one might choose to say was popish; good, sensible fellows who detested theory of any kind, whose ideal was the maintenance of the status quo with perhaps a loving reminiscence of old war times, and a sense of wrong that the weather was not more completely under their control, who desired higher prices and cheaper wages, but otherwise were most contented when things were changing least; tolerators, if not lovers, of all that was familiar, haters of all that was unfamiliar; they would have been equally horrified at hearing the Christian religion doubted, and at seeing it practised."

Akandaman

Excellent, excellent post. Unfortunately, people that need to take this information to heart most will remain unaffected, even if they were to see it. Thus again, as I've written before, the problems of modern American 'democracy'. Where people are brought up and maintained (through vigorous enforcement of laws) on artificial, simplistic notions of 'equality': women are equal to men, blacks are equal to whites, kids are equal to adults, animals are equal to people, etc., etc., etc. Things are not equal in this way!!

But these ideas of equality, repetitiously force-fed to virgin minds through our childhood educational system (ie., our public schools! 'Skinnerism', one might say), and held fast as I said through the 'legal justice system', allow REAL inequalities, evil AGENDAS--the freedom to roam. Unhindered by a population of capable, critical thinkers, THE ONLY DETERRENT TO SUCH ABUSE.

And so we crumble to the dust from whence we sprang. Eh??

Good writing, Ernest Partridge. I'm glad you've taught maybe a few, in your years.

nedlud

Strawmen and logic.

Reading Mr. Partridge's essay is like reading an essay from the Swift homepage. James Randi is constantly battling the fake shamans, the speakers to the dead and astrologist. The arguments and the weapons used to debunk them are always the same.

It's logic and evidence versus the straw man. Yet there are always people who, no matter what evidence is presented, refuse to change their beliefs.
.
The big problem, and again Mr. Partridge nailed it, is that too many people regard logic and science as just another belief, no different from yours or mine. When science is treated as only a theory, and logic as an opinion in the media how are we to expect that people will learn the truth?
.
How is the truth to be learned when the media puts out any thing that is submitted without vetting the facts? The worse crime is when the media airs or prints factual garbage, and refuses to clean up the mess it created.

Bullet

Or, the media (and others) who INSIST that there are two sides to every story and that both sides deserve equal weight. As if "Intelligent Design" was a viable and equal alternative to evolution.

Sometimes 1 + 1 = 2, no matter how many different opinions on it there might be.

indiana

Professor Partridge says it would take a book to begin to highlight the superior reasoning(s) of our left-wing, “liberal” point of view. Sometimes, a little inductive even after-the-fact, ad hoc, or a priori reasoning helps. Maybe our proofs can’t go beyond the metaphorical or metaphysical, that is to say, “My God is bigger’n yourn.” When I see a need for or reliance upon dogma, I am more likely to look askance at the proposition. This is coming from someone who was raised as a Baptist.

Millennia ago, people realized that being burned was one of the worst ways to die or suffer. So, like one kid trying to outdo the other, “I’m going to make eleventy-seven dollars, a googolplex of dollars, “trillions and quadrillions…” hell was born, in an escalating panoply of punishment, and the promise of heaven is a logical sequence for those who conform to the moralists. With the notions of heaven and hell for fundamentals and, as catalysts, dogma like water flows downhill.

Moreover, a dogmatist won’t make the effort to consider a liberal’s proliferating profundities, and there’s the rub. A little bit of characteristic laziness to me, is to be found in the most morally reassured, as the dogmatist builds a fortress out of his belief. With circular reasoning, he thickens other battlements.

Now, we philosophers are often guilty of going one metaphor too far, peeling too many layers off the proverbial onion, losing our listeners. With apologies to Occam and his “razor,” the original “keep it simple, stupid” rule, here’s my rhetorical club:

Consider 2 medicines on the market: “Viagra” (“Cialis,” ED drugs…), versus insulin. Now, when you witness those ED drugs and other ubiquitous drug ads on the tube, I contend those particular nostrums may or may not be needed or are even worth risking the side effects, the hard-sell and the relentless barking notwithstanding, with the potential for profit being the deciding factor, not necessarily what’s best for the patient. A fortiori, a lot of the “new” drugs that are heavily pitched are often virtually the same old drug with a molecule or two added, removed, or repositioned from one that has gone generic, but profits from that equally effective version won’t pay for the air time. Compare and contrast the drugs we see on Tv with insulin: Insulin is a miracle drug if ever there was one, with millions of lives being prolonged and dramatically improved, eyesight is saved and limbs are not cut off of hundreds of thousands of folks each year, thanks to insulin. When did you last see an ad for insulin in the MSM?

My point is that reality is like insulin, while right-wing cant more resembles Viagra hype. The harder the sell, the bigger the question; truth may be as quiet as it is hidden and the truth may be buried by the hype as well. For Limbaugh types to raise their voice, to pontificate and thunder like Elmer Gantry, is one of my biggest tip-offs, that a bullshit storm is pending. In contrast, Bill Moyers will say he is no great speaker though he was trained at the seminary, and sometimes the resonance of being right rouses his crowd to frenzy, but it’s the revelatory moment that is the star, then, not Bill’s lilting voice.

I think a lot of philosophy is mere obfuscation due to excessive subjectivity or maybe my obtuseness, and therefore, for me, it is often unreadable if not indecipherable. If I’ve done that to you, dear reader, I apologize. Thanks for the read and all the fish.

REJames

"How Keith Olbermann remains on the air is something of a mystery. Perhaps his spectacular commercial success may have something to do with it."

It's no mystery why Olberman is so popular. He's got charisma and he's funny in addition to being informative. The reason why Rather and Donahue didn't last was because they were only informative. That's the way the media works. You either have to be funny and informative or you have to be an over-opinionated blow hard to get a show. The problem is that too many right wingers take the blow hard route. It's not neccessary. Leftists can do the samething without being abrasive although it's not as tempting. We have Ed Schultz but KO and Jon Stewart have shown us another, more popular way. Table thumping isn't the way anymore.

gregmatic

My compliments to Mr. Partridge

An adult approach. Sadly, wasted due to the fact that so many Americans think and react like children.

If an adult has a sufficient attention span and is inquisitive, this kind of discipline can be employed to discern the horseshit from the truth.

However, like a vast herd of 7-year-olds, most (over half and growing, IMHO) of American chronological adults lack the ability to do so. So it is left to the fascist media to treat them appropriately. "'cause I said so" becomes accepted basis for belief. If it is yelled, ala o'lielly, even more weight is presumed. Logic, empiricism, etc are not relevant as they require effort and reason, which does not exist.

This roy fella is clearly intelligent. However, he is also emotionally stunted and intellectually blinkered. He is a savant, able to do one thing well, but unable to think for himself. Roy is a typical american. Roy is one of the 'good germans' who would turn in his neighbor to the brownshirts and sleep quite well afterwards.

Each and every one of roy's beliefs about his beloved 'conservative' dogmas (more accurately, they should be labeled fascist to nazi) has been proven to be fallacious. Every one. But roy cannot or will not see or believe it. He's welded to his belief in bullshit. Just like all clergy.

Roy is the reason I hold out very little hope for a return of our republic. ever.

jtree

Bad logic is problem enough, then there is nonsense...

You said: "I submit that the right is much more inclined than the left to utilize fallacies. That’s a bold and unsubstantiated claim. Perhaps I should now proceed to write the book that will support this claim. It will take at least that much space to accomplish the task." I'd love to read it.

One common tactic I have seen is to boldly state something which is, in fact, actually opposite to the truth, and usually provable as such. Or similarly, berate an opponent for doing something which you are doing also, or which only you are doing. To dress as a credible source (suit, tidy haircut, sober tie) and then state nonsense in a reasonable tone of voice, is the height of cognitive dissonance, and it is easier to doubt a string of words than a well crafted image.

Of course, this tactic has nothing to do with arguments, good or bad.

Sadly, there are political tactics which resemble insanity in all but a couple of minor points -- mad persons are generally made unhappy by their condition, and mad persons cannot control the manifestations of their madness, or not much. The faux-mad people are not made unhappy and have very good control of their lunacy. They use their unsettling, inconsistent mix of control and nonsense to confuse perfectly sane, sensible Americans who can't deal with this because they take it at face value, and have not been taught strategies to reject nonsense reliably, no matter how authoritative the source, or perceive good sense even when the source is Dilbert's genius garbage man.

MrsCake

Balanced news vs. Critical thinking.

The mainstream media claims that it's presenting balanced news, which presupposes that the truth is unknowable and only can be dimly perceived, if ever, by presenting both sides of every issue. This view may seem, at first blush, to make sense; however, the right uses it as a sword to label evidence-based findings of fact as mere opinion that is unworthy of belief. To use an absurd example to illustrate how lazy, stupid, and ignorant the mainstream media has become, assume that one side (let's call it the right) asserts that Mars is made out of red-pepper cream cheese and the other side (let's call it the left) asserts that Mars is a rocky planet that exhibits extensive signs of water erosion. The mainstream media would on-the-other-hand its viewing audience to death presenting both views as if they one was no closer to the truth than the other.

By giving equal time and weight to verifiable bullshit in the name of providing balanced coverage, the mainstream media has jettisoned its prime directive, which is to search for the truth and "tell it like it is."

Empowering and enriching oneself by polluting the airwaves with impassioned claims that hunger can be solved by not taxing the rich and throwing tax money at private corporations to invade Mars and mine its inexhaustible supply of cream cheese is indefensible nonsense.

Can you imagine a jury acquitting a con-man of defrauding investors out of millions of dollars to purchase the Statue of Liberty because the con-man claimed that he had the right to sell it? Yet, the mainstream media would have us believe that the truth is unknowable and the con-man's claim is as valid as the prosecutor's claim that the con-man cannot sell what isn't his to sell.

The mainstream media, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Reagan, Ingraham and the rest of their ilk are human garbage and the pulpits with which they have been provided demonstrate how compromised and worthless the mainstream media has become.

I realize that I've mixed a few metaphors here, but I think my point is clear enough. Give me a break -- it's my birthday and I've had a few beers. Can't find the cream cheese though.

"Hey, Rush, where'd you put the cream cheese?"

Mason

Mason was spot on when he wrote: "...to illustrate how lazy, stupid, and ignorant the mainstream media has become..."

They are lazy, stupid, and ignorant. And, excepting very admirable journalists such as R.Fisk and S. Hersh, they are unscrupulous cowards who's prime motivation is to manage their relationships with their bosses instead giving their trade the due diligence it deserves.

The chronic pants-wetting is one more serious obstacle preventing most of them from making informed judgment calls on important issues. They don't know, don't want to know, and are just too busy brown-nosing editors, who are just as busily engaged in sucking up and pissing down. The Fourth Estate in the US is a joke that deserves it's hammering in the market.

The up-side to the deadly consequences of their acting as Pentagon force multiplier and Wall Street perception management agent will be the resulting -- even if temporary -- meritocracy in the field of journalism, as the scales continue to fall from the eyes of millions of the crippled empire's consumers.

exitstan

Selected Responses to Ernest Partridge's essay from The Democratic Underground.

Thank you for posting this.

I have a database where I store things I know I'll want to refer to again, and I just copied this over there.

I hope everyone reads this.

janeaustin

Absolutely Fascinating

Makes me wish I had taken more Philosophy classes while in school.

I think I'll look for the book you mentioned. Thanks!

SnowCritter

Excellent work.

Another fallacy that often comes under fire is the "slippery slope" argument which, in some cases, is sheer foolishness--like gay marriage will lead to people trying to marry their dogs, or their furniture. On the other hand, allowing certain liberties to be set aside for convenience's sake, on the other hand, will doubtlessly lead to further erosion of liberties simply because it puts the citizens in the analogous position of frogs in a gradually warming pot. At first it's a hot bath, then a jacuzzi, but eventually it's a death trap.

We've SEEN the results of that particularly slippery slope with the "War on Drugs" (TM) and now the "War on Terror" (TM).

Myhsage

The "Munich" argument about concessions

The OP states: "Among the most prominent of these is "the Munich analogy:" the claim that the example of the 1938 Munich agreement proves that bargaining with one's (presumably "evil") opponent will only increase the opponent's appetite for more concessions. Yet diplomatic negotiations have prevented far more wars than they have caused."

This popint is quite easy to prove, with regards to preventing evil from triumphing.

It was actually quite good that Chamberlin conceded to Hitler. At that point in time, England had few armanents of any type - and without the year and a half that it gave the nation to start building up its Air Force and Navy, Britain's chancing of staving off Hitler would have been almost impossible.

You meet a fierce bully and his buddies in a back alley when you are unarmed - far better to hand over your wallet and go home and get some buffed up friends than trying to tackle said bully outright on your own.

truedelphi

Beat me to it!

I've been planning such a post myself.

The media's biggest, fattest crime, has been to convince us that everything is "opinion" and thus equally valid. There is no longer any "fact" in politics. Don't think war is good for the economy? Well that's your opinion! Think our presence in Iraq inflames violence? Just your opinion! ad nauseum

Everything isn't opinion, and all opinions are not equally valid.

Chulanowa

Nice Job...

I have a quick question though...

Any chance you can point me to a source for this...

"The hypothesis of "the reluctant Bush voter" was in fact tested and found to be without independent foundation. In paper ballot and other verifiable precincts, there was no such bias."

I've never bought into it (RBV), but I haven't seen the conclusion you've noted.

Thanx

EndoftheRepublicans

Ernest Partridge replies:

Here are some citations debunking "the reluctant Bush voter" hypothesis:

A Novice's Guide to Why the Ohio 2004 Exit Poll Discrepancy Matters to Americans. pp 8-9.

"US Count Votes" "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies." (Search "reluctant.")

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RollingStone. June 1, 2006).

RFK Jr. writes:

"In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky [the company conducting the exit poll] was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology -- so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. [I.e., an ad hoc hypothesis. ep] According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) -- displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry's favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

"Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's ''reluctant responder'' hypothesis is ''preposterous.''(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ''It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.''(37)

"Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ''The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,'' observes Freeman, ''but actually contradicts it.''

"What's more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent -- a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)"

Note: the numbers in the RFK Jr. excerpt above indicate references which may be found in the Rolling Stone article. EP

Fantastic. What a wonderful read.

Thank you so much! I feel like I just took a wonderful class, you must be a great teacher.

grace

The problem is that much of it IS just opinions

From where I'm standing, what you've produced is a wonderful guide in the partisan wars between Democrats and Republicans. As such, it has almost no relationship to real politics at all.

Most of the issues your post highlights -- and I assume its not inadvertent that you choose the issues that you do -- together represent a very opinionated view of what issues are politically important. At the fore is of course battling and perhaps shouting down Republicans followed by "refuting" Christian fundamentalism" and "proving" science in the face of skeptics (presumably Christian fundamentalists) and the dissemination of right-wing propganda by major media outlets.

To be honest, it seems as though you want to make the case that "We're right because we're smarter". That doesn't really answer your friend's rhetorical challenge: what makes your opinion better than mine.

It's not about fancy argumentation or "framing" things to your best advantage, its a question of where you stand, why, and what you plan to do about it. It seems to me that liberalism is painfully lacking in consistent answers to those questions.

I mean, sure you come out and say you're for this or that (or even just generics like "change") but the Why? starts to degenerate into the fact that you're an enlightened and socially conscious individual and the Plan ends up being perpetuating more of the same with a different label in the vain hopes that somehow that will change everything. Playing within the system even though any honest assessment would conclude the system is the problem. Being pragmatic even though you know its a code word for capitulation because its too risky to do anything else and you don't have any other ideas anyway.

To me, the liberalism you advocate is nothing else BUT a series of more or less unconnected opinions strung together this way or that, depending on how the winds blow at any given time. As an easy example, Nancy Pelosi is a popular punching bag right now, but you will be banned from DU if you support Cindy Sheehan against her.

You know how I have to end this post, right ?

This is just my opinion

Tech 9

What issues are much more important than those?

Trying to keep the world's most powerful country from falling into a fundamentalist nightmare that varies from fundamentalist Islam only by degree? Putting forward the proposition that 'catapulting the propaganda' is the job of partisans and not that of supposed journalists?

Those seem like pretty big issues to me....and a large part of the underlying paradigm. Without that kind of blind faith and willful ignorance, perhaps some of the other catastrophes this so-called administration has brought to the country and the world could have been derailed.

BobTheSubgenius

Explain to me how that compares with the platform of the Democratic Party as late as the 1950s let alone earlier. The stuff you're trumpeting as "most important" has dick to do with the average workingman, and very little social consciousness besides. Food, energy, and consequently every other commodity is skyrocketing. You are, in my view, obligated to present a better analysis than "its the fault of the criminal Bush White House". Surface truth does us no good.

Tech 9

Did you actually read the post?

It's good that you end yours with "That's just my opinion."

Because that's all it is - no facts, data, testability or outside reference.

I have to admit you set off my radar when you put Christian Fundamentalists and skeptics in the same breath. That's stretching the word skeptic to the point that's way out of whack with it's more traditional usage.

The OP's answer to his friend does answer his question.

He doesn't say overtly, nor obliquely, that "We're right because we're smarter." if you look at what the OP says it's more akin to saying "We're right because what we say is not mere opinion - we actually believe it, it's rooted in the consensus reality, has been tested to some extent and, if you don't agree, then make some sort of sincere, earnest, and reasoned case."

Logic is a toy to many Republicans, it is a weapon for others who only resort to it to tweeze flyshit out of pepper and stall deliberations and stymie consensus. This is why sincere, earnest, and reasoned is important. Many Republicans talk a good game, but don't eat their own cooking, or obviously stop their efforts short when it appears they don't like the answers they're going to get. Democrats are noted for not being like that in they'll argue their opposition's case for them, etc.

I'm not saying democrats are angels, but you can tell that, in general, they actually pay more than lip service to good governance and the spirit of the ideals outlined in the constitution.

I can't really say the same for most Republicans I know.

mrbluto

Good intentions, sentimentality, and belief?

Don't try to pin that on me, its what your post just identified as the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

That's really not a very good set of criteria.

What I think is that most liberals live vicariously through the TV (what do you think the correlation coefficient between what's discussed on MSNBC and DU is? ~.9?). Further I think your opinion on any given day might as well involve flipping a coin.

Off the top of my head, that sentimentality flared up not so long ago when Bill Frist threatened the "Nuclear Option". It was a blow to Democracy, an insult to every ideal this country holds sacred, blah blah. Yet, suppose the Democrats make solid gains in the Senate. Tell me there won't be arguments here that we have to stop "obstructionist Republicans".

What you're saying is that the difference is as much moral and ideological as it is based on factual disputes. You're going to need more than a pair of tweezers to stretch the threadbare "principles" of liberals to figuratively pull that argument out of your hat.

If you go to sleep with some cherished, iron-clad belief and wake up tomorrow and the consensus has done a 180, what happens? Its not just that your own view shifts to match, its that you DON'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE!

I'm telling you, the only thing you can know for certain is where you stand. Compromise that, and the rest is a chaotic whirlwhind. Do you really want brownie points because sometimes Democrats play Devil's Advocate?? Or that they want good goverance (whatever that even is) in words but more Democrats (same old shit) in deeds?

Tell me where you stand and the rest will always follow. Forget where you stand, or plant your flag in sand and you've pre-rejected what comes after.

Tech 9

There is a lot of sentimentality regarding the constitution and the bill of rights. In the long run that is a bad thing to depend on, but sentimentality does have it's beneficial effects. Sad to say, but many people in this country don't have the time or are articulate enough to wade into deliberations regarding rights, laws, politics, etc. without an effort that their economic situation doesn't afford them a practical chance of doing. But so long as they "get" the essential idea we're not so bad off. For example they may not know off the top of their head that the Bill of Rights indicates that citizens should be "secure in their place, persons, and papers", but they have a sense of what privacy is. That makes it easier for everyone to defend those rights. Same for many of the other rights. The general sentiment for the Bill of Rights helps. Easily abused, easily misinterpreted, in danger of being spun as irrelevant, a whole host of flaws aside - I think it's a net plus.

The big trouble is that the people whose job it is to apply their intelligence to the task of vigilance have slacked off and not done the maintenance necessary to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights as healthy as it ought to be. In fact some in power clearly are working to trivialize them.

The words "Justice", "Equality", "Freedom", "Peace" and other big idea words are not always vague abstractions. Often they are useful abstractions. Sometimes even vagueness itself can be useful. I have an idea of what they are, people I know have somewhat similar ideas, even many people I've just met have very similar ideas. I'll cheese out right now because it's my day off and not define all four in this post, but pick one and ask me what I think it means. That will be an interesting exchange I'm sure. What I will say in this post is that they do help us pragmatically.

There are positive expected values for those acting in ways that even partially fulfill the meaning people hold for those words.

Let's take "Equality" for instance. If you have a law about equal opportunity for employment and there's an institution that takes measures to ensure that hiring processes are at least somewhat competency based as well as racially and ethnically neutral then more people who wouldn't have applied for a position will apply. If you have a cost efficient way of accurately reviewing applications then you get a bigger pool of applicants. A bigger pool typically means a greater variety, which means a better chance of a good fit for the job. At the very least you're more likely to find people who will have a greater commitment to the job. Voila! Pragmatic outcome.

I could do that for each of those words.

What you might want to consider is that Democracy isn't just a "nice" thing to have - it really is more effective in the long run. Think of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a way to mitigate the risk of a Tyrant and, in my opinion, it starts looking like a remarkable piece of systems engineering. If you read Thomas Jefferson he has this great quote about the core being cyclic voting you can tell he's right at the edge of articulating the idea of democracy as a designer memetic organism. One with an immune system and built-in provisions for adapting and for error correction.

It needs maintenance though. And repairs. And some refactoring.

But some don't want that cause all their work at gaming it would be gone. They're like parasites that mainly want to monetize everything in sight and then punch eject. Where is it that Bush has that plantation in South America? Paraguay? Not that I'm implying any thing, but it is in the neighborhood where a bunch of Nazis went to ground. (yes, yes - now I've set-off Goodwin's law.)

mrbluto

But aren't opinion and truth the same thing?

How are we to tell the difference between one person's opinion and another's? Doesn't everyone who evaluates an issue arrive at a different conclusion due to their unique subjective perspective? How can any one of these opinions be shown to be superior when everything is relative?

Really, who's to say whether Creationism, Intelligent Design Theory, or Evolutionary Theory are the truth? Is Global Climate Change the truth, or the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public?

It was thought by some that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and this served as the basis for an unprecedented invasion, but even though others criticized this policy after the fact because none were found, how could we really have known for sure? Wasn't it better to "shoot first and ask questions later" when faced with such an intractable enemy who constituted an existential threat? After all, he-says this, and she-says that, and how could anyone possibly know the truth, and is there really any such thing as truth anyway?

Not only are all men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, as Jefferson famously pointed out, but they are also endowed with Reason; in fact, it is Reason which most human beings consider the primary characteristic that constitutes our humanity. When employed properly to interpret empirical evidence, Reason can clearly indicate the truth of the world, and in a manner so demonstrative and indisputable that all reasonable people are compelled to accept its conclusions.

Metaphorically speaking, we see through a glass darkly. Nevertheless, we needn't simply shut our eyes to what is visible, no matter how vaguely, and choose to uncritically accept the word of the soothing voices that whisper the answers in our ear. Instead, we can strain our eyes (and it DOES require you to strain) to see what is visible to us, and using our invaluable endowment of reason, enhance our vision to perceive what is plain and equally available to all who seek it: THE TRUTH.

The truth of the greatest issues of our day silently waits to be revealed, and must be revealed in such a way that all reasonable people cannot resist accepting: through the dispassionate, objective use of Reason. Just as you would if put on trial for a crime you didn't commit, you must expect -- DEMAND -- that the facts be laid out properly so that the truth may be known to all, regardless of whose agenda is harmed in the process. Never allow those with an agenda to convince you that opposing viewpoints regarding an issue are equally valid. In matters of fact, the truth is unwavering, immutable, and waits to be found by those equipped and dedicated enough to find it.

Nineysix

Best. Post. Ever.

My natural taciturnity leaves me a low post count leading people to think otherwise, but I've been here for years and read tens of thousands of posts.

This is absolutely the most valuable one I have encountered. Very important, universally applicable principles are explained cleary and laid alongside common right-wing arguments as a yardstick even hardcore bushites would be hard pressed to dismiss.

Copious kudos.

gaijinlaw

As Democrats we tend to believe that ours is the only valid viewpoint.

Republicans tend to do the same. Both sides hold up what they view as the extreme positions of the other side in order to ridicule and dismiss them. We do it with Republicans here all the time, lumping them all together with Bushco and the neocons. We tend to make caricatures of them in order to belittle and dismiss their points of view, and they do the same to us.

The question is, is there a valid conservative viewpoint that contrasts with the liberal viewpoint? Many of our Founding Fathers were men of very contrasting and partisan points of view on some very important subjects and they argued vehemently about them, but I don't know if they looked upon the opposing side as being evil or just stupid and not having a valid point of view or political philosophy.

Think of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Think today how many of your partisan Republicans in daily life would spit at the name of Ted Kennedy, yet he is a man who is admired in the Senate by fellow Republicans (they disagree with his politics, but admire the man).

Have we become so bitterly divided and partisan today that even if we disagree on something we cannot even admit that the opposite side has a valid (but wrong to our way of thinking) belief? I not just referring to Democrat-Republican because I have seen the exact same thing happen right here among Democrats where you somehow must hold a certain point of view, otherwise you are not really a Democrat.

elocs

Thank you sincerely for this wonderful essay.

I bet your classes are terrific. K&R!

yellerpup

The thing with his "It's just your/my opinion" thing is that if it's only opinions, it's not a big deal, but when opinions spill over into wanting to force others to live by one's own standards, then it's not so great.

For example, I can respect a Conservative's opinion that gay marriage is "wrong". I don't agree, but I respect it. Conservatives can think it's wrong till the cows come home, and it's not a problem UNTIL they start sticking their noses into the private lives of other people.

Liberals don't think it's wrong and want others to have rights. Conservatives think it's wrong and want to DENY other people rights.

So, for me, it's not so much the opinion that's bothersome, it's what people try to do to others...or take away from others...based on their own opinions.

Conservatives need to stay out of the private lives of other people. Have their opinions...fine....just leave other people the hell alone.

pipi_k

Well done!

Thanks for the thread, CrisisPapers. Maybe if your friend reads your post instead of just listening to the radio, the reasoning or logical aspects of his brain will be more activated over the emotional part.

I do believe emotion is easier to transfer through listening and this is what has given hate radio it's power, when you read, the reasoning part of your brain is activated just to decipher the written words and their connotation. A radio jockey or television pundit can put contempt overtly or subliminally in the tone of his or her voice which in some cases neutralize or alter an identical message on paper and strike at what I believe to be a more primordial portion of our brain.

Good luck with getting your message across.

Uncle Joe

About Bernard Weiner's essay, "Homage to Izzy: Secrets & Lies."

Bernard Weiner:

[You wrote:] "Too bad I.F. Stone isn't still around. He would salivate at the possibility of dealing with a good but wavering Democrat."

I would be astounded if Izzy Stone would stay in the same room with your "Yeah Obama's a lyin' son-of-a-bitch who's sold me out every chance he's had so far, but I'm still going to vote for him and play his tune on my dedicated Demoblican organ 'cause... I can't remember... but that's their plan and I'm stickin' to it!" tune, Bernie.

But what are the dead for but to be shamelessly used to argue for the causes they opposed most in life, right? You put words in Izzy Stone's mouth just like the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts put a smile on MLKjr's lips.

Who says you and the Dems haven't learnt a thing over the past eight years? You're right up there with the pros now.

John Francis Lee (7/1)
Thailand

Dr. Weiner:

One of the best articles I have read on this website. Thought-provoking without being excessively partisan.

I liked your observations on the MLK statue. I blame those problems on committees in general. Anyone who has served on a committee knows that committees spread out the responsibility for making decisions.

I appreciate your observation about the soldiers. The Vietnam War Memorial is one of the most powerful public displays I have ever seen. (My wife and I stood before it crying like babies while our children looked on in bewilderment. Four of my Marine friends' names were on the wall.) The presence of the soldiers in my opinion doesn't detract from it and but they do not add anything either. I haven't a strong opinion about MLK's statue but a smile doesn't seem appropriate. He rarely was pictured with a smile on his face. He was on a serious mission. I wonder what he would have wanted. I think we, meaning most people,are well past thinking of black people as being uppity.

Mad Jayhawk (7/1)
from OpEdNews.com

Dr. Weiner makes several good points. But, the best point is that I.F. Stone was a journalist outside the establishment who not only didn't trust the government, he also had a healthy skepticism of the media. It's too bad he wasn't alive in 2000-2008 to do what journalists should have been doing: questioning executive branch statements.

Walt Brasch (7/1)
from OpEdNews.com

I greatly admire most of the writings of I.F. Stone. However for another view pointing out some interesting flaws, I strongly recommend google-ing I.F. Stone Education Forum. This covers I.F. Stone's defense of the Warren Commission, and some interesting points made about Stone's career that were printed in 1964.

Nathaniel Heidenheimer (7/1)
from OpEdNews.com

My first contact with I.F. Stone was his book "The Trial of Socrates." The main premise was that Socrates got what he deserved. It was a wonderful book that I attempted to share with my classics teacher who promptly told me he didn't like de-constructionists. I never went back to that class. Wish Izzy Stone was here to kick us in the rear so that we would see the things around us.

NOMOREWAR (7/1)
from SmirkingChimp.com

Regarding Other Issues.

People should not overreact to this FISA vote. People in Congress know what is at stake. This is a chess move.

There is a private and serious concern that Bush will try some kind of distraction before the election, even an engineered "Tearist" attack on a major city.

If this bill is defeated, Bush can say that he has lost the ability to protect America, and it will end up being the Democrats' fault, even though we all know this is BS.

If this bill is passed, it will remove one aspect of his ability to claim this. It will also put him in a position of being responsibility for protecting America. Bush and his gang have always used the idea that we have not been hit since 9/11 as a way of showing how they need this power.

This will only be law for six months. This Bush gang has been in power for eight years. We can spare another six months if it means that Barack Obama will be elected and take the oath of office.

I say, let him have it. It will help to protect our country for the next six months from manipulation by Bush and gang.

President Obama and a Democratic Congress will repeal this law in the first week after he takes office. If they do not, that will be the time to put pressure on them, not now.

Have faith in Barack Obama and your leadership. They know much more than they are saying publicly.

Skip Nelson (7/1)
San Francisco for Obama
forwarded by Wade Hudson

June 24, 2008

About Bernard Weiner's essay, "Increasing Signs of GOP Desperation."

Dr. Weiner:

Whichever party is "lucky?" enough to "win" the White House might very well be getting the booby prize. Maybe, in essence, the Republicans really don't want it because they see the road ahead and don't want even more blame for it.

Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

Paulette (6/24)
from DailyPaul.com

The next president has a real s**tpile to clean up when the idiot is finally gone. Maybe they are thinking it great to give this crap to the Dems and when it takes longer than four years to clean it up (and it will), they can come back and accuse the Democrats of not being up to the job.

Lebam (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

I think that the Republicans don't care that McCain is tanking, because they know there is going to be an intervention and excuse to invoke martial law. They know there probably won't be any election. McCain is a placeholder until the secret scenario plays out. Why is no one in the press exploring this?

daviescy (6/24)

Mr. Weiner:

This is the best description of GOP I've read.

Another recurring GOP strategy or --wink, wink-- coincidence that forever shows up right when the public is starting to get news regarding some embarassing GOP gaffe or plot, we become overwhelmed with trivial celebrity news stories and long drawn out trials of no particular purpose beyond distracting the public

mikel weisser (6/24)
from OpEdNews.com

Republican do not have the psychological make-up to do other than what they have been doing. I think Prof. Bob Altmeyer has done the best psych profile of right-wingers:

The Neocon Election Stealing Machine will make all of this meaningless. Unfortunately.

paparush (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

The N.E.S.M. only works in close elections.

I'm not going to predict the spread before November, but I'm sure it will be significantly more that +6 points like it is now.

They may be able to steal a state or two as usual, but it won't be nearly enough.

tridim(6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

I do hope you are right. I just see a corporate media destined to keep it within 6 pts.

paparush (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

And how do you we know it's close? Because the MSM Says So.

They can rig the numbers any way they want. The MSM's job is to make people believe them.

AndyTiedye (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

Lies and election theft may be the least of it.

It appears they are desperate enough to start another war, this time with a truly dangerous enemy, leading to potentially catastrophic consequences for the USA. GOP desperation appears to be driving them to destroy the country in the physical, literal sense. This is a terribly dangerous time...

Obama will have to fumigate the White House and have it steam-cleaned to get rid of the stench of corruption and death.

electropop (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

(Weiner wrote about McCain:) "How does he live with himself these days? I can't even guess."

Same way GWBush does: heavy medication. And isolation within his supportive cabal oasis.

OmelasExpat (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

Compare and contrast how pundits view a Barack Obama presidency: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1324

Only time will tell. IMO, Obama can go either way, or both ways. He may govern like a traditional Democratic "hawk" but he also has the potential to be a transformative figure like Roosevelt or Lincoln. I don't think the latter is necessarily likely, but it's possible. With the other candidates, there was and is no such possibility -- they are all totally committed to the dark side of the force.

Scott Schneider (6/24) Canada

Weiner wrote: "Either that or they simply are incapable of thinking straight after eight years of [the GOP].... spin chamber."

...The Republicans have been spinning furiously for the past eight years.

As I learned when I was nine years old and built a rope swing in the huge beech tree behind Old Man Hoyt's carriage house: Once you stop spinning, you're bound to fall flat on your face.

SmokingMan (6/24)
from SmirkingChimp.com

It is not so much the failing of the Republicans but the realization by the electorate that their ideas are so wrong for America. Their ideas were wrong from the start. I look forward to their demise.

All those who have died in my family who had lamented the curse of the Republican ideology might just be vindicated in my lifetime this time around.

I will accept a Senate and Congress controlled by Democrats and I hope that a Obama Presidency ascends in this country. I never thought I would say that, but I yearn to see what a Democratic-controlled Administration/Congress would be like. I have some history on my side that says one-party rule is bad and I see how ONE party ruled badly lately. So badly that we need a major fix to rectify the situation.

I am willing to go with the Dems 100% this time and live out the last few years of my life hoping I made the right choice.

topjob66t (6/24)
from SmirkingChimp.com

If the GOP is truly desperate, they don't know it.

Listen to any reich-wing talk show, they huff and puff about how McSame is going to walk all over Obama in a landslide, how they are going to lock up Congress again, and "make this nation great again."

You don't have to dig very deep to realize that their confidence rests in their unshakeable confidence that Billy Bob Murica would NEVER vote for a black man. They can do any damn thing they want, as long as their guy is white, no worries.

I believe they are WRONG, and will get their comeuppance like we haven't seen in 70+ years. One good thing Bush did, albeit unintentionally: The "Reagan Revolution" is over, baby!

kebo (6/24)
from SmirkingChimp.com

In my car yesterday, I heard what I think the Republicans are going to use as their key issue, Sean Hannity was laying the blame for high energy prices on the Democrats, specifically Bill Clinton's veto of the bill to allow drilling in ANWR. Hannity was claiming that there are more oil reserves in the United States than all of the Middle East combined but due to overly protective environmental regulations these reserves can not be developed. He also parroted the story that China and Cuba were drilling for oil only 60 miles off shore from the U.S.

While most of us on the far left see political issues as the key issues in this fall's election pocketbook issues are going to be key for most voters. If the Republicans are successful in laying the blame for high energy prices on the Democrats, they can win the election. While I don't have an AM radio on at the moment, I'd bet money that Rush Limbaugh is parroting Sean's meme as I type.

Sure enough, I just walked out to my car and turned on the Rush Limbaugh show and the first words I heard were "Barack Obama and the Democrats think that drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR are failed policies from the past."

With the right wing monopoly of AM radio, they can easily hijack this election by shifting the blame for high energy prices onto the Democrats, even though neoconservative monetary policy is responsible for the plummeting value of the dollar which is responsible for most of the rise in energy costs.

Hannity was also ridiculing Jimmy Carter and conservation of energy, recalling Carter's call for Americans to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater. If the MSM picks up on this meme and keeps it in the forefront from now till election, the Republicans could easily regain the House and Senate, never mind that the Republicans have controlled the presidency for the last seven years and the House and Senate for 12 of the last 14 years.

Kevin Cloyd (6/24)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

...In the coming days, watch the Republicans try to make hay out of Obama's opting out of the public campaign financing system (after promising that he would do the opposite).

Obama needs to be careful not to give them any more rope. He needs to stop trying to be all things to all people.

JMadison (6/24)
from SmirkingChimp.com

Bernard Weiner:

I e-mailed your essay to all of my politically-interested friends. The content had merit. I particularly liked the dispassionate tone of your enumeration of all the Bush administration's failings at the beginning of the article. No gloating or railing over mistakes. Maybe we're all too exhausted by events of the past 7+ years to work up any more outrage. .By the way, 'serruptitiously" should be spelled "surreptitiously."

jaybedf (6/24)

Let Obama take the fall. In four years our Campaign for Liberty will grow at least five-fold, then we take the White House.

Four things I can see that will happen with an Obama presidency:

1) We'll start getting out of this racial mess;

2) The Democrats will be blamed for an economic mess;

3) War with Iran will confirm that the Democrats are NOT an anti-war party;

4) Those voters who are running over to the Democratic party to vote for "Change" will run back to our Republican "Ron Paul Candidate" for REAL CHANGE!!!...

lynnopoly (6/24)
from DailyPaul.com

In my professional opinion, Senator Obama leads in all of the essential areas vs. McCain, especially in the area of temperament/composure. Further, Obama and his administration, along with Congress, will address the critical current and future domestic and foreign issues, challenges, and opportunities in coming years.

To my fellow citizens, please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote.

Colonel A.M. Khajawall (Ret.)(6/24)
Forensic Psychiatrist Las Vegas, NV.
from AtlanticFreePress.com

Did you vote for any of this? (Most of us didn't.)

*$4.07+ for gasoline and $2.59 for eggs.

* Doing nearly nothing about illegal immigration because they want their rich fat-cat contributors to have plenty of cheap labor available.

* Giving our troops tanks without much armor.

* The $11,000,000,000.00 (eleven Billion dollars!) bailout for the rich (Bear Stearns).

* Iraq prison torture.

* Providing substandard treatment in VA hospitals.

* Canceling parts of the Constitution (w/ email spying and phone taps). NIXON would be proud.

* Making the U.S. a country that's known for secret prisons (and then lying about it).

Also, we can do without Bush/McCain-style fear-mongering that's being peddled as "experience" and failed war-mongering policies that have made Iran stronger.

Oh, and Republicans are the party that preaches to us about their "Family Values." Then Republicans were caught, again and again, sending sexually-explicit emails to underage congressional pages, having sex in airport bathrooms, etc., etc., etc.

ABM: Anyone BESIDES McCain in '08!

For Far-Right Conservatives: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Ron Paul.

For Democrats, Liberals and Moderates: Barack Obama.

Mark Anderson (6/24)
Reston, VA.
from Topix.com

Republicans like Bush, McCain and Cheney have consistently fought cost-of-living increases for older Americans receiving Social Security. This shows that their tendency is to be greedy and mean-spirited. And anyone who disagrees is likely to be labeled a "bleeding heart."

They have deregulated the home loan industry to allow deceptive "funny money," no-interest loans (and similar "sucker deals"), and their rich buddies got richer, but average people get the shaft!

Used an $11,000,000,000.00 bailout for the rich (Bear Stearns), but average people get the shaft! (8,000 people PER DAY are being foreclosed upon.)

Rely on fundraisers like Clayton Williams, a Texas oil man who once joked about rape, saying that a women should basically just allow it and enjoy it. The exact quote is "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." (McCain refused to return the $300,000 that Williams raised.) Again: greedy and mean-spirited.

Support economic policies that have sent the dollar plummeting, raising prices for nearly everything. Unchecked speculation in markets drives prices even higher! (No action from the Republicans, again showing their tendency is to be greedy and mean-spirited.)

McCain recently held a fundraising dinner for rich "fat cats" at $2,300 per plate. (To be fair, Barack Obama is charging $500.00 per plate.)

Whether or not you agree with all of the above, it seems to me that McCain/Bush/Cheney Republicans should not be rewarded for the lies about torture, the illegal wiretaps, and letting gasoline get above four dollars a gallon, while letting milk go to about the same price.

Please join the 51% of Americas who are opposing McCain (36% support him). If you can afford it, you might consider sending a contribution to any other candidate or party.

Anonymous (6/24)
from Topix.com

Spot on.

Well paid workers are obviously the best customers. The current Malefactors of Wealth have been eating their seed corn for two decades now.

One point I keep making, to little effect (maybe I'm mistaken?), is this: rising access to easy consumer credit correlates with the decline of unions and wages. Credit cards hurt unions at least as much as Taft-Hartley, Patco and capital export. The banks persuaded workers to prefer "borrowing" their cost-of-living increases, and paying interest, to collective bargaining and paying union dues.

Neat trick. This is the "serfdom" to which your refer, I presume.

Anyway, terrific essay. Please, keep thumping this tub. Your premise is unassailable, and I believe it is plain and powerful enough to help arose America's docile workers from their slumber.

Michael Evers (6/24)
Chicago, IL

A couple years later Walter Reuther, head of the UAW would say "with bicycle wages you get a bicycle economy"

Bart. (6/24)
from The Smirking Chimp.

Nice try.

Everything here is true. And it's insufficient to solving the problems we face today.

When progressives had power, they used it stupidly.

We built a labor movement that provided a decent income for the "middle class". Unfortunately that same labor movement treated investors with the contempt that they had earned by their previous behavior.

It was really satisfying - and it led to Ronnie Raygun and open warfare against the unions.

When we had social problems from generations of racism, we didn't solve the problems - we threw money at them. The problem with welfare wasn't the cost, the problem was that we destroyed the social structure of the black community. And that destruction was the result of experimentation and adaptation. Does anyone remember an adaptation called "the man in the house" rule.

I want a progressive society.

I want one that is NOT run by people who think that just because their hearts are pure they can make the trains run on time.

Gerard Pierce (6/24)
from The Smirking Chimp.

Life Preservers as the Cause of Drownings.

"The problem with welfare wasn't the cost, the problem was that we destroyed the social structure of the black community."

Strangely, when for many years the majority of people on welfare were white single women (and probably is still true), welfare was never to blame for any defect in White society/culture. Blaming welfare is exactly like tossing out 3 life preservers to 100 drowning people and blaming the life preservers for those who drown.

The "the social structure of the black community" was not destroyed by feeble attempts to right the multitude of wrongs against it, but by those wrongs. The War Against the Poor, aka the War on Drugs, and the virtual total absence of jobs paying a living wage are responsible for 110 to 200% of the destruction of "the social structure of the black community". Unemployed single men who can't find a job other than one paying sub-poverty wages and requiring them to place their dignity in the dumpster on the way to the time clock, either remain unemployed and dependent on someone else, or they turn to crime, especially the selling of drugs, or they join the Army and steal oil for parasitical war criminals. Yeah, I know, Dr Huckstable, education is a legitimate way out for some, but not everyone can get a college degree, but even if they did, that would only mean we would have the same number of unemployed and prison inmates, only much smarter and in default with their student loans.

This, of course, is the Nazis wet dream, an Ownership society where poor boys either provide the fodder for war crime or slaves for profiteers exploiting prisons (just like I.G. Farben, Inc).

FDR's job programs worked yesterday and would today. Greed pigs fight them tooth and nail simply because it would mean higher wages for those who do the work, and lower graft for those who parasitize them, and it would put upward pressure on those paying slave wages across the board.

"I want [a progressive society] that is NOT run by people who think that just because their hearts are pure they can make the trains run on time."

Depends on what the definition of the trains running on time "is". For many, when the trains are running on time for the wealthiest 1%, then the trains are running on time. Others quibble with that measurement of success.

SnoopDopeyDogg (6/24)
from The Smirking Chimp.

I think the use of Henry Ford above was spot on.

If ever there was a person who could not be called liberal, it was Ford. If a rightwing extremist, and billionaire CEO and robber baron, admits the wrongness of VooDoo economics, that carries several million tons more weight with conservatives than a billion liberal bloggers saying the same thing.

It takes a book (and several good ones have been written) to discuss Ford's Nazism (no, not figuratively, but literally), so all I will say was that Ford was the epitome of right-wing corporo-fascism. Ford fought epic battles against unionism, and focused his evil genius on how to defeat them with laser beam precision. He knew had a formidable task because he had to convince his workers to support and vote against their obvious best interests. This he did with his fervent anti-Semitism, claiming that socialism and unionism were the orchestrations of a worldwide Jewish-communism conspiracy. Since he had complete control over what was distributed at his workplace, much of his lunacy was not contradicted. His tactics and propaganda were adopted wholeheartedly by the party in Germany he supported and funded: the Nazis.

I believe the term "Trickle Down Economics" was first coined, or at least first widely used, by the catastrophic failure that caused the Great Depression known as the Hoover Administration. Per Santayana, it's deja vu all over again.

SnoopDopeyDogg (6/24)
from The Smirking Chimp.

Bravo, Dr. Partridge!

Memo to President Obama:

Dr. Partridge for Sec. of Labor!

Michael Fox (6/24)
from The Smirking Chimp.

That is where it all falls apart.

For the buyers to have the purchasing power, they must be able to earn the money. Small business to large all pay workers a salary that enables them to purchase what they are making or selling.

liberalNproud (6/24)
from Democratic Underground.

They Are Not Capitalists.
Their favorite customer is the military.
They use their influence to get no-bid contracts.
They use their control of the media to promote endless war.

No free market, no competition.

It is not capitalism anymore when robber barons buy the government.

Ride the Music (6/24)
from Democratic Underground.

Neither "supply-side" nor "demand-side" economic is entirely right or wrong.

The key is having a reasonable balance. there are indeed times when there is insufficient capital and onerous restrictions and the supply-side is artificially and counter-productively dampened.

However, this is not one of those times. in fact, we haven't been in one of those times since reagan popularized the concept. Today we are awash in capital that has no good place to go, hence the boom-bust cycle as everyone flocks to the latest investment craze. dot-com, real estate, now commodities.

We have such an imbalance that now we need a major demand-push. People are strapped and just working off their debts and can't be the engine they're supposed to be.

Trickle-up will work very well, as capital will quickly identify ways to extract any new-found money in the hands of consumers. business will boom as soon as people have some room to breathe.

It's not always the right solution, but it certainly is in these times.

unblock (6/24)
from Democratic Underground.

The system and the madness they preach is consumerism.

It has little to do with capitalism, law of supply and demand, or whether a product is needed or not. They are economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. Yes, there are no sellers without buyers. But with the right policies and the right advertisement, and a good knowledge of demographics, people will hock their soul to buy the newest trinket, blouse, pair of shoes, or pet rock. It is easy to create buyers.

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." Robert Heinlein

Which is why I've started calling it "Trust Me" economics.

Mother Earth is watching us. She won't hesitate to shake us off her back like so many fleas... which we are. Don't talk about "saving the Earth", talk about saving our place on the Earth.....

johnaries (6/24)
from Democratic Underground

Too Funny! "Trust Me" is just too apt. I shudder.

"Blinded by Greed" doesn't begin to describe our corporate overlords. They won't be happy until they've got all the toys, yet fail to realize that once the rest of us are impoverished, there will be no more income.

Where do they think they can go to be safe from a poverty stricken, starving and disenfranchised world populace? We WILL eat the rich - if we have to.

DCKit (6/24)
from Democratic Underground.

"There are no sellers without buyers" may well be the first law of practical economics, but the mistake that is made is to compare market activity with practical economics. It is not. The stock market is essentially a profit-driven machine that allows and facilitates the process of betting on what other investors will do, when they will do it and to what degree they will affect prices.

That has nothing at all to do with economic principle.

Jim Freeman (6/24)
from OpEdNews

Big Business looks at the US market, with 5% of the world population, and sees more potential with the 40% over in Asia.

So what we have is a transfer of wealth from the US to Asia, to create consumers over there to get them up to 1/2 the purchasing power of Americans. Still aways to go, but thats the plan. America has served it's purpose. Business is moving on to greener pastures and to countries that actually invest in infrastructure. Our government is helping them move in the interests of Globalization.

pft (6/24)
from OpEdNews

Dr. Partridge I totally agree with you.

The key question is can we do a 180 degree turn around? If the neocons drive us into a regional war with Iran and Syria/etc. we are apt to be so deeply into a nightmare that we may not be able to get ourselves out, regardless of who is elected President. In my lifetime I have seen America become very rich, and I mean by this that many people have entered the Middle Class and many even have entered the lower Upper Class, but now I am seeing the deliberate destruction of America. That is so tragic and so evil.

Stirling (6/24)
from OpEdNews

We can all work at making this scenario more complicated than it really is, but this article is rather much the plain truth. And painful, too. Only recently have people finally begun to pull Reagan's "trickle down" bunk down off its' pedestal as the mythology it really was. This "theory" of ecomnomics has done far more harm than good. Coupled with the realities of the size of the global economy, and the outright greed and short-sightedness of big business in America, we have less and less to work and hope for with every passing day. Well done.

Ivan hentschel (6/24)
from OpEdNews

According to the San Antonio Express-News (June 20, 2008): "$650 billion has been expended on the Iraq war." This is an ill-conceived illegal invasion of a nation posing no immediate threat to us and was all based on twisted lies of an administration now giving oil rights to five major oil companies. Just think how that $650 billion could have been used in our nation to help Katrina flood victims, as well as those of many tornados and flood waters of the past few months, with billions left over for other needed projects. We have nothing to show for $650 billion, except lives lost and shattered on both sides. Iraq -- even with evil Saddam Huesein gone -- is now worse off than before the invasion.

Colonel Colin J. N. Chauret (6/24)
USAF Retired Fighter Pilot
Universal City, TX.

About Bernard Weiner's Bush's Testimony Before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Mr. Weiner:

Pure fantasy. In reality, what will happen is that Bush will pardon everyone he ever met by the end of his term, to take care of any U.S. prosecutions.

He will have his corporate and political buddies protect him and his fellow conspirators from any other worldwide prosecutions.

World justice only applies to the losers of the wars who lose their power, such as Saddam and the Bosnian criminals. How many other dozens of world leaders deserve to be brought before a judge? Probably a third of the African and Asian leaders, plus a number of European and Americans as well.

Most of these criminals will either be president-for-life or retire to live off of their stolen wealth in a friendly country.

FoonTheElder (6/17)
from SmirkingChimp.com

This is pretty good. It might go something like that, but I think the author is a bit too kind to Bush.

NotACynic (6/17)
from SmirkingChimp.com

And, he has made Dubya far more eloquent than he is, "habenero corpus" notwithstanding.

indiana (6/17)
from SmirkingChimp.com

Once again it's all about the U.S.

Where is the recognition of Iraqi casualties in all this? Any truth and justice commission must also deal with crimes against Iraqis if the mindset behind this criminal war is to be exorcised.

kwalsh (6/20)
from OpEdNews.com

Comment from Bill O'Reilly:

"Who are these [commission] people? Don't they realize that President Bush took the fight against the Islamofascist threat right to their home turf? He saved all of their asses from the fire & now they want to punish him for it. President Bush is a damn hero! That's right - A HERO! And the sooner these dweebs on this so-called commission realize that the better. "Of course, that won't happen. They are led by a known communist, Desmond Tutu, and repeatedly invoke lies as fact, accept the testimony of traitors and turncoats like Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, and will sell this country down the tubes just like der Fuhrer Obama wants them to do.

"I weep for this once great nation."

BaldGuy (6/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

I'm totally against any attempt at reconciliation.

The crimes are not secret -- their perpetrators have bragged about them.

The evidence is mounting and more witnesses are coming forth daily. I want to see justice for the world. We already have a good handle on the truth, which crimes were committed, and who committed them.

Demeter (6/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com

Dr. Bernard Weiner's article is humorous and is worth pondering.

I am waiting to see the extremists like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and their ilk jump on the author of this article. What makes these extremists believe in Bush beats me.

72% of the nation clearly does not like anything Mr. Bush does, and yet those conservative pundits make a god out of him. (They give conservatism a bad name.)

If it were in Canada, UK, Israel, Australia, South Africa, India or other democracies, Bush would have been dumped in a hurry on a vote of no-confidence...

Our president is a ruthless, arrogant and ill-intentioned man. ... It is a shame we let Bush use the name of God to advance his wickedness.

Mike Ghouse (6/17)
from AtlanticFreePress.com

About Other Issues.

Bernard Weiner & Ernest Partridge:

Frustrated as we all are at the seeming obtuseness of an American public that has been gradually lured into both the dens of the Red Republican Right (having nothing to do with Communist "Reds") and the Liberterian groups who never have made any sense to me, I need to ask you: PRECISELY, WHO THE HECK ARE YOU?

I have been waiting to hear a voice or voices of sanity and reason, of historical rootedness and capacity to see, sense, hear, and understand what is taking place right before our eyes, ears, noses, and brains, and have finally decided to try to blog on my own, in the person of Chunking My Worlds; Some Memories, a few Adventures, and jots of History Concerning Living Among We the People and the Roots of Today's Political Issues. I haven't done it yet, so don't worry about competition.

I like what you're saying and you don't "seem" to be fanatics, but who the heck are you?

Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v Bush affirmed habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. The Court, however, did not address the question of who the President CAN lawfully detain as an enemy combatant. The case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri -- now pending before the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will answer this question -- will help shape detention policy in the post-Bush era. Mr. al-Marri, the only person held as an "enemy combatant" on U.S. soil has been detained, without charge, at the Consolidated Naval Brig in South Carolina since June 2003 after he was arrested in Peoria, Illinois. Mr. al-Marri's case tests the Administration's contention that the President can lawfully imprison legal residents arrested in the United States indefinitely and without charge. This pending case has added significance in the wake of the Supreme Court decisions last week in the Boumediene and Munaf cases as these opinions left the question unresolved...

Susan Lehman (6/17)
Brennan Center for Justice
NYU School of Law New York

Letters to The Crisis Papers

Thanks. -- The Editors

July 1, 2008

June 24, 2008

About Bernard Weiner's essay, "Increasing Signs of GOP Desperation."

Home | Crisis Papers Blogs | Best of the Web | Dissenting Internet | Features | Contact Us