Wattree's picture

    The Tavis/West Poverty Pimp Tour

    By Wattree on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 5:40pm |

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

    .

    The Tavis/West Poverty Pimp Tour
    .
    Why Attack a Sleeping Sentry Before Repelling the Invading Hordes?
    .
     
    The primary reason that our government doesn't work, and the institutions that are supposed to be protecting our rights have become monuments to the maintenance of the status quo is because WE, THE PEOPLE, have allowed ourselves to become so distracted by the corporate promotion of social hedonism that we're allowing the most ruthless among us to take control of government.
    .
    As I point out in a message to the group, CARMA - Citizens Against Reckless Middle Class Abuse - the poor and middle class will never be secure in their homes, their standard of living, or their jobs until they ensure that their politicians, unions officials, and all other representatives of the people are insecure in theirs.
    .
    So while Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have the right idea in terms of the need to confront power, it’s their motives and the hypocrisy of their agenda that I have a problem with. They’re clearly being self-serving and purposely divisive, which plays right into the hands of those who continue to subjugate us.
    .
    Keeping the people divided is the coin of the corporatist realm, and I seriously suspect that Tavis is working in concert with the corporations that he continues to shill for - Wal-Mart, Exxon, Nationwide, Wells Fargo, etc. As for West, if he was even close to as intelligent as the corporate media would have us believe, he’d surely recognize the relevance of the Abraham Lincoln maxim that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” So West is either working in collusion with Tavis’ turncoat agenda, or he’s incredibly stupid for failing to recognize that social manipulators have been keeping the people under thumb with the tactic of social division for centuries - if not eons.
    .
    The fact is, the people need to take a lesson from the Tea Party. We need to strictly control those we allow in office, and make them immediately accountable for their behavior. The government is SUPPOSED to be us, but we've shirked our responsibility. We’ve allowed ourselves to become more interested in Kobe’s jump shot than we are the education of our children, the future well being of our families, and even the survival of the nation as a whole. We’ve also allowed corporate instigators to create so much animosity among the people that we’ve become more interested in hating one another than we are in coming together to protect our common interests.
    .
    We do need to get Obama’s attention, however, that’s a given. But our approach should be through educating the people, not by antagonizing half of the population against the other. That’s counterproductive, and it’s also counterrevolutionary - and believe me, the turmoil that’s taking place here in the United States, in the Middle East, and now in the United Kingdom, clearly attests to the fact that we’re in the midst of a global, class revolution.
    .
    Tavis and West are advocating that the people live in a fantasy. The problem with that is, when you live in a fantasy, you're forced to view reality as a myth. They’re engaging in the very same kind of hysterically flawed, self-serving, and demagogic behavior that Ralph Nader did during the 2000 election, which led to the misery of the Bush era, and ultimately, to the situation that we currently find ourselves.
    .
    Those of us who are students of political history have seen this Tavis/West demagoguery before. They’re following directly in the footsteps of Ralph Nader, one of the worst turncoats in American history.
    .
    Nader should have pushed his agenda during the Democratic primaries, then if his position was rejected, he should have fallen in line and supported the Democratic candidate if for no other reason than to support the public good. But instead, when his position was rejected, he took it as a personal rejection and acted like a petulant child. He ignored the greater good and purposely sabotaged the Democratic agenda - along with all of the causes that he was supposed to be so passionate about all of his life - and took his ball (and votes) and went home.
    .
    By doing so, Nader negated everything that he ever accomplished in his life. He also betrayed the fact that everything he ever accomplished was done purely for self-promotion and not for the public good, as we had previously assumed. His miserable act of treachery during the 2000 election was purposely designed to help George Bush to win that election in order to deny the Democrats after rejecting him as a candidate. That makes him just as culpable as Bush and Cheney for the death of over a million Iraqi citizens, the maiming and death of thousands of American troops, and even the nations current economic condition, which is a direct result of the Bush administration’s purposeful plundering of the United States treasury. Nader supporters would say that he stood on principles, but his "principles" has led to the death and misery of literally millions of innocent people. Thus, Ralph Nader should be remembered as one of the most miserable and self-serving snakes in all of U. S. History.
    .
    Tavis and West are engaged in the very same sort of treachery as Nader, and it may very well lead to the same result, or worse. Because you see, this time we’re going to be left with a fascist state. Look around you. The GOP has already turned the state of Michigan into Michighanistan. So what are we gonna do, not vote for Obama in the next election and turn the country over to fascists? It sounds to me like that’s what Tavis and West are advocating.
    .
    That brings me to yet another reason why the activities of Tavis and West send up a red flag for  me. Notice that nearly all of their hostility is directed toward Barack Obama, and they’re saying little or nothing about the GOP, who are DIRECTLY engaged in undermining the poor and middle class. So I have to ask a very simple question. Why are they focusing all of their energy and resources toward attacking a sleeping sentry, while completely ignoring the invading hordes?
    .
    Something is very wrong there, or at the very least, tactically inept.
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    I am nuts about this issue!

    But as you well know it is not just pundits from the Black Community.

    I mean why are not they burning Steele in effigy?

    Michael Steele is a piece of excrement along with a number of other Black politicians!

    And like I just pointed out, I do not understand the positions taken by Eric Holder!

    I am angry at our Attorney General. Why are not 1,000 executives indicted?

    But there was a woman's movement decades ago and now we are hearing from those old women from my college days. I mean I am supposed to be pissed because a crazy woman is depicted as a crazy woman on the cover a national magazine?

    I mean she is crazy!

    This Cain is an asshole and I do not care what color he is!

    But I am mad at Holder.

    Why has not Issa been indicted?

    Oh well!

    Blacks, Women, Asians....I see them all the time on FOX the NAZI NETWORK...

     

    They are there because they want money; just like white men they want money; just like people who feign that they love the Christ; they all want money and they care not how they get that money.

    And in the end they will tell us they earned that money; that they are only questioned about their purposes in life because they are women or they are African Americans or because they are minorities or ...whatever.

     

    There are evil evil folks who seek money over eithics and there is not a goddamn thing we can do about it!

    Damn, I am madder than I thought. hahahahahahah

    Sorry!

     

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 7:54pm

    Allison Samuels has a post on West & Smiley at "The Daily Beast". She notes the following:

    West and his longtime friend, radio host Tavis Smiley, have taken their criticism of Obama to the streets, launching a two-week, 15-city “poverty tour,” aimed at forcing the powers that be to once again focus on the “least among us” and getting the president to “wake up.” Their efforts are increasingly stoking fears among some African-American leaders that West and Smiley could discourage black voters from turning out when the nation’s first African-American president stands for reelection in 2012.

    “The negative discussion Dr. West is having can only put more apathy in the hearts of African-Americans and could ultimately cause them to lose more faith in the entire political process,” says the Rev. Otis Moss III, pastor of Obama’s former church in Chicago. “Where will that leave us?”

    Lately, Obama’s supporters in the black community are fighting back. As West and Smiley pulled up aboard their “Call to Conscience” bus in Detroit in early August, a crowd of hecklers awaited them outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center. “We will not stand silent as Smiley and West criticize the man who brought us health-care reform, one of the greatest accomplishments for the poor in this country’s history,” says a spokesperson for Detroiters for Better Government.

    The pushback is not just coming from community organizers. “The poor did horribly under every president before Obama, and yet there wasn’t this level of outcry toward them by these men,” says Michael Eric Dyson, professor of sociology at Georgetown. “That makes folks skeptical about the intent.”

    Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree is trying to broker a truce and a meeting between Obama and West before the end of the year. We shall see.

     

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/14/cornel-west-and-the-bla...


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:04pm

    Nader is accused of "treachery" for pushing a progressive agenda?

    He's responsible for Gore running an uninspiring campaign? He's responsible for the media making up lies about Gore for 2 years?

    He's more responsible than Republicans disenfranchising 100,000 black votes throughout the state?

    He's more responsible than the weird butterfly ballot approved by Democrats?

    He's more responsible than Al Gore for not fighting back immediately, effectively for the recount, for letting thugs shut down the recount, for not calling out Democrats to the street?

    There were 8 parties on the Florida ballot who received more votes than the Gore-Bush difference - how come you only mention 1 name?

    Nader's more responsible for 1 million deaths than several million lazy voters who thought Bush was the same as Gore, who didn't even add up his Social Security lies?

    Nader's more responsible than lazy people who didn't help with Get Out the Vote?

    Look, Democracy is sometimes messy, but pushing your agenda is almost always warranted. Looking for a scapegoat to deny people the right to speak their minds is pretty anti-Democratic.

    If Obama cares, let him come to the people who are losing interest. Requiring everyone to fall in line just because reeks of desperation.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:30am

    Would MLK be happy with the equation, "Obama's done good enough"?

    Seems this report card is filled with "but there are other kids who did worse" rationalization.

    Can someone say just exactly what Obama's going to do to handle black joblessness, mortgage foreclosures, incarceration, etc?

    Because if there isn't an obvious plan that 1) would work, and 2) would actually be implemented, people should be complaining until there is.

    [note - this is not "purist": if there's a real, passable plan for meager results and the case is made that that's the best possible, so be it. But I don't see a plan - just another confidence fairy - "some day, one day, it will all get better, or at least won't get too much worse"]


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:38am

    Did MLK Jr choose Kennedy over Nixon and LBJ over Goldwater? Was Kennedy a champion of Civil Rights? In each case, did MLK really wind up choosing the lesser of two evils?

    Do you think that MLK Jr might have said that a person of good conscience could not vote for candidates like Perry and Bachmann who have ties to a very questionable form of Christianity and have very uncharitable views of issues involving the poor? He felt that people of good conscience could not vote for Goldwater.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bac...

    MLK jr used his powers of persuasion to mobilize the poor and powerless. King did not sit by and try to usher in a GOP takeover of the White House and Congress. Van Jones is encouraging the masses to take similar action. Jones apparently does not feel "dissed" by Obama and wants the President re-elected.

    From the mouth of Van Jones:

    “I’m glad [Obama] is there, and I will do everything in my power to make sure he stays head of state until they have to pull him out of there … But the job of creating an independent movement that brings out the best in the American people, that’s our job.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/15/tea-party-s-liberal-cou...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:20pm

    MLK Jr. spoke out against the Vietnam War. He didn't say, "This might elect Nixon" or "LBJ ushered in Civil Rights". He spoke his conscience.

    Read his brilliance here, from April 4, 1967:  http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

    Where are our peace leaders today?

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:33pm

    .....Can someone say just exactly what Obama's going to do to handle black joblessness, mortgage foreclosures, incarceration, etc?

    .....Where are our peace leaders today?

    Here is a timeline of the modern Civil Rights movement.

    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html

    Rosa Parks' arrest and MLK's leading the Birmingham bus boycott occured in 1955.

    The Riverside church speech was 12 years later in 1967.

    Was MLK Jr a moral laggard or did he address what he viewed as the most pressing problem first?

    West and Smiley are on a poverty tour, are they misguided in making that their main focus?

    http://www.theroot.com/views/chicago-smiley-and-wests-poverty-tour?page=0,1

     

    Given the baggage and ego associated with West and Smiley, I am more accepting of Van Jones approach. Jones is targeting organizing people. Smiley seems to be more interested in putting out a survey before election time.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 4:24pm

    Well gee, it would have been hard for MLK Jr. to address Vietnam in 1957.

    I have no problem with West & Smiley trying to draw attention to poverty to do something about it. That seems uncontroversial. 

    Other people have other priorities, and they're welcome to try to make their priorities heard. It's a big tent, and there are a lot of problems to address.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:38am

    US advisers arrived in Vietnam in the early 1950's. The numbers of were small. Out of sight. Out of mind. Similarly, we have less than 1% of the citizens in the US in the military. It is possible to have no direct connection with any military personnel involved in the Middle East. Annual troop sizes began to triple in the early 1960's.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:15am

    US troops were 16,500 in 1964. Not enough to get MLK Jr.'s attention.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:32am

    Out of sight, out of mind. My point, exactly. As opposed to 50 years ago we have an all volunteer military serving in silence. decreased personal contact with people who are serving.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:19am

    More important, the march on Washington was in 1963 - did MLK Jr. think about holding off to help JFK's re-election?

    Did MLK Jr. calculate whether the march to Selma would hurt LBJ's chances for re-election, since he was a Democratic president?

    Did he think his speaking out about Vietnam would sink a Democratic president?

    Did he fret that the 1968 garbage strike could give support for Nixon? 

    Did people used to stop their activism for 15 months just to help a politician get re-elected?

    Or did they use elections as another opportunity to get their pet causes heard?

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:44am

    Concerning activism, what did West and Smiley activate prior to being "disrespected" by President Obama?

    Go back and review the events surrounding MLK Jr's incarceration in Birmingham. JFK informed a concerned Coretta Scott King that she would be receiving a call from her husband. The call did take place. Kennedy sent federal troops to keep order in Birmingham, despite Gov. George Wallace saying that state and local forces could handle the job.

    MLK made very clear that he saw a big difference between Barry Goldwater and LBJ.

    There is nothing in the record to suggest MLK would have taken actions to elect wingnuts who are to the far right of Goldwater. I think if King made clear his feelings about Goldwater, the same would have been true if he had t deal with Bachmann or Perry. I do think that King would have made a differentiation.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:59am

    JFK reached out. Good for him. As did LBJ.

    No wonder MLK Jr. preferred LBJ.

    But I don't recall MLK Jr. limiting southern protests to better Democrats' chances in the south.

    In short, he pushed his agenda and let them worry about theirs.

    As should West, Smiley, and anyone else who has an agenda.

    If Obama reaches out to them in some fashion, maybe they'll change their tune. Up to him. Up to them.

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:04am

    Part of the problem here is that we are taking the situation 50 years ago and making a comparison to today. Goldwater and Wallace were somewhat niche politicians. There were moderate Republicans who were countering Goldwater. those moderate Republicans are gone. Goldwater himself would now be considered too Liberal to be in the GOP. Bachmann and Perry are mainstreaming wingnuttery. King thought that Goldwater was bad, he would find a way to make similar comments about Bachmann and Perry.

    King would have continued to protest. King would also make clear that there were demons on the other of the aisle. King said that no person of good conscience could vote for Goldwater, what would he say about Perry and Bachmann?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:39am

    Don't know what "niche politician" means. 

    Wallace is the only 3rd party candidate in the modern era to win electoral votes (about 8.5% of the total), including 5 states and 13.5% of the vote.

    Goldwater of course was the GOP nominee, and he basically lost in a landslide to John Kennedy sympathy and the Great Society combined.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:39pm

    .....Can someone say just exactly what Obama's going to do to handle black joblessness, mortgage foreclosures, incarceration, etc\

    I'll tell you what he could do, if he was the man Watree would have us follow:  He could use his undisputed and unique pardon power to reverse the slow motion holocaust that we call the American Justice System.  

    Instead, he has lagged GW Bush on pardons issued.  Precious Blood of the Sweet Baby Jesus, what is his major malfunction?


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:06am

    From your link.

    .....I am pardoning all incarcerated drug offenders of whatever stripe.

    You may get some pushback if you're including violent offenders in that statement. The involved communities may not want those folks back.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:21am

    Agree. While 3-strikes was draconian and unfair, it also slashed the black-on-black murder rate by 2/3. Some middle ground required.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:06am

    Agreed. The nonviolent folks are different than the violent ones. Cocaine sentencing should be equivalent for powder versus crack. If the cocaine abuser uses violence than that has to be taken into account.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:24am

    Taking it to the logical conclusion, if crack cocaine causes people to be violent and sniffing cocaine doesn't, then the penalty for crack cocaine should be greater.

    If a condensed version of a drug causes much more damage than a non-condensed version, the condensed version should carry greater penalties.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:34am

    If I have a 1 in 3 chance of being robbed at gunpoint with crack, I'm not relieved by having a 1 in 6 chance of being held up at gunpoint because of powder cocaine. Using a violent act as the determining factor is fine by me.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:14am

    If you're deciding where to put speed bumps, you can't say "well, they're all cars that get into wrecks". You figure out what factors cause more accidents and you act accordingly.

    Bars that get a heavy share of police calls are declared public nuisances and closed.

    7-11 was relegated to selling lower alcohol beer in order to decrease the likelihood of drunken driving. (Not sure they carry beer anymore). Saying, "we'll just punish all drunken driving the same" doesn't help to prevent drunken driving at its likeliest. And most crime isn't deterred by penalties.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:36pm

    Yeah, they both get zero. Prohibition is an 80 biliion dollar scheme to maintain the police drug sales franchise-he who enforces can license the practice, & does.

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:44pm

    post hoc is not propter hoc. Taking lead out of gas & paint had more to do w/it.

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:51pm

    Just because one factor higher doesn't exclude other factors:

    http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/05/lead-prisons-and-crack-explaining-drop-violent-crime

    And often can't wait decades later to figure out other causes - you act on what you know at the time.

    It appears that changes in behavior (from drug policy & other factors ) plus incarceration accounted for half the change.

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:22pm

    And by one account, fluoridation increased lead levels in kids.

    http://www.nofluoride.com/dartmouth_study.htm

    It's synchronicity, I tell ya, the trifecta


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:47pm

    Violent offenders catch beefs for violence. BY "WHATEVER STRIPE" i meant to include ALL varieties of exogenous neurotransmitter modifiers.

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:38pm

    Crime policy is intended to deter the worst crimes, not to punish fairly.

    If shooting speed balls results in 500% more crime than smoking dope, then shooting speed balls should result in 1000% the penalty. And likely dope should be legalized or at minimum decriminalized.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:26pm

    The consumption of exogenous neurotransmitter modifiers does not cause crime--the need to acquire outlandish sums of money to feed the franchise system now in place causes crime.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:13pm

    I used to live across from a Mexican bar - drunkenness causes crime. 

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:43am

    It sure as shit does--whereas the only crime traceable to weed smoking is theft of doritos...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:23pm

    Simple theft? I've seen the leftover carnage - not a pretty sight. Crumbs everywhere, mutilated corn pieces. Savages.

    But seriously, I'd legalize weed in a New York minute. Mushrooms? Not a big violence inducer. Cocaine? Not so benign. Meth? These guys can tell you.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:04am

    Yeah, yeah, yeah...give me a break.  Urban legends aside (he threw the baby out of the car!) and allowing for the unfortunate effects of smoking any white powder (route of administration is not a trivial issue) I am here to tell you that speed does not kill, it fights off the alzheimer's.

    Now, it is true, that pharmaceutical speed is superior to the brew you get off the filter down at the Angel's clubhouse on avenue c and third street, but that is true of almost any neurotransmitter modifier, including the sacred product of saint Albert Hoffman.

    And, I do not countenance the widespread practice of introducing epsom salts into the solution prior to crystalization, so that the cut is imperceptibly intermingled with the product.

    All that aside, and with the recommendation that you ingest, not inject or inhale, a little speed ("less than enough feed, more than enough weed, just enough speed, and way too much pussy") each day keeps father time away.

    Just enough, mind you, not too much.  I did know a guy who stayed up six weeks, until he got to where if he as much as leaned against a wall he fell asleep, but that is abuse.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 7:57pm

    It's also funny to say that it would have been okay if Nader had just primaried Gore, and then turn around and say that Smiley/West should sit down 15 months before the election.

    If people would spend more time trying to advocate effective policies that make the Democratic brand stronger, and less time trying to stifle dissent, we'd likely have a better Democratic platform in 2012 whatever Obama wants.

    What did you dream Obama would do 2009-2011, and what's still possible 2011-2013? How about a list?


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:42am

    Hmmmm.

     


    by kgb999 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:31pm

    This post is so wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

    1. As to Nader, the road to efficacy for a third party inevitably goes through a "spoiler" election or several.  The Greens today are a force in Europe.  They will never be one here if all they are is the environmental wing of a corporate Democratic party.  Who the fuck are you to tell Nader, who has done more good in this world then you can hope even to catalog, that his role was to "fall in line" if he could not move the Democratic iceberg.  He did not, after all (unlike GI Joe Lieberman, who was allowed by your dem buddies to hold his seniority and wield his shiv to emasculate Health Care Reform) run in the primary and then bolt.  He was outside from the start.  You want to make it  his fault that Al Gore laid down and died in Florida, and that he couldn't bring his prissy ass self to embrace the successes of the Clinton Admin because, oh my, there was sex being did, SEX, I say!  Fuck him, he didn't need any help to be a loser.

    2. Cornell West is so fuckin' smart, people pick up twenty IQ points just by being in the same room as him.  His evaluation of Obama is spot on, and, if anything, too charitable by half.

    3. I refer you to the website Black Agenda Report, for a more complete deconstruction the errors of your ways. Tavis is no corporate shill.  Obama, is a corporate shill.

    4. What the fuck is with the "pimp" meme usage, other than a gutter slur implicating a  racist stereotype?.  Also, (as the Wizard of Oz said to me when I raised an eyebrow at his usage of the term) "pimp" is just haterese for impressario.  Sol Hurok-a  pimp.  Diaghalev, Pimpasaurus.  You should only wish to have enough game to be a pimp, you pompous piece of work.

    5. We need to strictly control    

    Who is this "we" of whom you speak--we Trotskyites?  I didn't see you at the last meeting .

    I will continue when my gorge settles.

     

    Oh yeah, also, shave off the hipster goatee, you bougie plant, you might actually deceive some  poor young thing into giving up some pussy and she'll hate herself when she gets to know you better.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:11am

    The great divide occurs when someone truly believes that their is no difference in an Obama administration and one headed by Perry or Bachmann. That stance is not factual.

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-look-over-there-i...

    One example, the actions on educational systems in North Carolina by wingnuts like the Koch brothers are in no way similar to those coming from the current Dept of Education.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:11am

    Who exactly said, "there is no difference"? It's a straw man.

    On the other hand, we're at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya.

    Presumably even Sarah Palin would have trouble launching more than that, and Ron Paul would likely get us out of all of them.

    Your mileage may vary.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:29pm

    Not a straw man argument. Read the BAR link conclusion.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 2:05pm

    Reprinted:

     

    Nearly three years ago the world economy nearly fell off the precipice when market manipulation burst the most recent capitalist bubble. All of the indices of crisis are still present. There is still fictitious capital plaguing the world markets. The United States never returned to manufacturing anything useful, but instead churns out bombs and guns and the inevitable wars that come with them. Western European nations are going broke, and austerity, not the stimulation which would save western economies, has become the cure all for a dangerous situation.

    None of this seems to matter to Democrats, who will only speak up when gaffe prone conservatives are in danger of becoming president. Their beloved president rarely makes any gaffes. He is a smart man from the right schools and from the right party. While he brokered a budget deal which Reagan would have killed for, and presides over the biggest military budget in American history, his liberal fans don’t care. They only care that Bachmann confuses Massachusetts with New Hampshire or Elvis Presley’s birthday with his death day.

    So, why not Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry? Since all of the conservative dreams are coming true under Obama anyway, it may make sense to have an honest conservative back in the White House. The comedic possibilities are endless. We should at least have opportunities to laugh as we head over the cliff.

    Conservative dreams are coming true, so why not have a snort?
    That doesn't say they're the same, but that the outcomes aren't so different.

    How many wars under President Bachmann or Perry vs. our current 6+? How bad would unemployment be vs. current 9.1%? Is there any chance either Obama or Bachmann will let Bush era tax cuts run out?

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 2:52pm

    It might not say explicitly they're the same, but it most certainly is the implicit message, as you seem to recognize. "Why not?" => "it makes no difference" => "there is no difference" => "they're the same". If you think I've made a big leap somewhere in that chain, please let me know where.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:48pm

    "They told me if I voted for Goldwater, I'd get war, inflation and fighting in the streets. So I voted for Goldwater, and that's what I got."

    Obama's cool and collected, Bachmann's a nut job. But at the end of the day, we'll still be in Libya, we'll still have a permanent presence in Iraq. Gitmo will not close.

    There may be some difference in judicial appointments, but surprise!!! Obama's left most of his judicial appointments open. But Obama wouldn't put the nutcakes in that Perry would. Except that if he leaves the chairs open, then Perry may get his chance anyway.

    So there's a difference - just the results aren't what people expect.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:44pm

    "Some difference" in judicial appointments? Sotomayor and Kagan are in no way equivalent to Roberts and Alito.  When both Sotomayor and Kagan were nominate the hue and cry was that they were not Liberal enough.

    Do you think that Goldwater would have passed the Civil Rights legislation that occurred under LBJ, or would have just had the fighting in the streets?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:19pm

    1) there are hundreds of judicial nominations at stake. If they're not filled, we can't judge them. Supreme Court nominations are only a small part of the issue.

    2) it's a joke


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:09pm

    No matter what nominations were made, the same criticism from the same quarters would arise. The nominees wouldn't be Liberal enough. No matter what Obama does, it would be wrong.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:33pm

    Another strawman - people will just never be pleased with Obama, it's not just about 12 major policy moves he's made.

    But then as Glenn Greenwald notes, Ron Paul's much more liberal on privacy and war issues than any Democrats, yet Democrats insist on saying the Republican candidates are all the same.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/16/elections/i...

    Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party.  How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa?  Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence.  That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates -- despite being a twice-elected popular governor -- highlights the same dynamic.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:46am

    Ron Paul agreed with Barry Goldwater on the Civil Rights bill.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:44am

    Does citing 1 example address the point, that Ron Paul is very different, that GOP candidates are not exactly the same?

    Or even that some (1?) GOP candidates have a subset of beliefs that dovetails with many liberal Democrats?

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:23am

    The one example is big enough for me to rule out Ron Paul. What do you think of Paul's views on states rights in the issue of whether sodomy is a crime? Review his response to SCOTUS'  Lawrence v Texas decision.

    If there is little difference in the outcome between Obama and a wingnut, why are you expecting such  a vast difference in outcomes between Paul and his GOP cohort?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:17am

    The problem is that this is a selective look at the implications of Ron Paul's policy outlook.  Ron Paul may be against laws making certain drug illegal, but let's see how lucky you are in getting him to give federal dollars for drug rehab or school prevention programs.  One may like his anti-surveillance state pov when it comes to terrorism, but probably not so much when it comes to the CDC. 

    Ron Paul represents the view that it does not take an village.  Even individual for him or herself.

    Aint that American home of the free

    Little Pink Houses for you and me.

    This is actually a rather powerful montage put to the song.  I just came across it, and was originally just intending to highlight Mellencamp's song.  But this montage shows the conflicting views of America.  How we feel proud and shame, and not for the same reasons.  Just the juxtaposition of an image of Ronald Regan and the black power salute at Mexico City Olympics in 1968 was brilliant for just this reason.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:30am

    The biggest is between step two and step three. Your logic takes an empirical assessment of outcome, which could be the end result of any number of different event chains, and incorrectly conflates it with specific actors to assert that two entirely different imagined event chains resulting in an equivalent outcome would prove 1:1 equivalence between all actors involved in any such chain of events.

    Not sustainable from a logic standpoint, it seems. A 5 lb ball-shot can be launched as a projectile using a giant slingshot or a cannon ... both will hit you in the head, but that doesn't make a sling shot the same as a cannon.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:09pm

    And presumably none of them would increase spending to buy their way out of a recession.

    We're all anti-Keynesians now.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:31pm

    A huge problem on the education front is that people haven't bother to look at the details of Race to the Top and instead have chosen to just look at how states and districts have chosen to respond to it.  It doesn't matter to the critics that the federal government cannot for all intents and purposes dictate curriculum etc.  The Obama administration is trying to undo the assembly line educational system with one hand tied behind their back. But as with so much else,. people want miracles and nothing less.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:56am

    Teachers are made to be responsible for the behavior of parents, other adults, poverty, poor distribution of education funds and the bad faith efforts of politicians.

    Politicians wage wars, Wall Street wrecks the economy and the citizenry openly criticizes education as "elitist" and teachers as "failures". We promote sports over knowledge and lack of facts as a virtue.

    The WSJ had an article about charter schools this weekend. The burn out rate in charter schools, even among principals is higher than one would expect. The teachers have to produce results, the rest of society, not so much.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:26am

     

    bougie???

    You need to read some of Wattree's work at the Post Office


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:59pm

    Latest Comments