dagblog - Comments for "I support the Egyptian people – provided it doesn’t affect me"

Except that who is in power

acanuck — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:37:23 +0000

In reply to Wolfy, thanks you always make

Except that who is in power has a fairly substantial impact on whether the issues of poverty get addressed, no? Do you believe in the wealth fairy?

IMO you have given up and are

Donal — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:30:14 +0000

In reply to #1 Your definition of making

IMO you have given up and are in full obfuscation mode. You can't support what you said, so you simply deny it ever happened. Amy Goodman was recommending that people participate in political movements, but you don't want to hear that and doggedly insist that she's asking for a full-time commitment or marching in the streets. She felt that liberals had clearly relaxed their efforts and intensity after the election. You take that as a personal insult. Too bad. When I look at what Goodman does and what you do, I know who I believe.

Wolfy, thanks you always make

tmccarthy0 — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:06:18 +0000

In reply to I support the Egyptian people – provided it doesn’t affect me

Wolfy, thanks you always make me laugh.

In all seriousness though, the problems in Egypt are directly related to the abject poverty experience by the majority of the population. Until the issues of poverty are addressed, it will not matter who is in power.

#1 Your definition of making

kgb999 — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:32:11 +0000

In reply to In order for me to answer

#1 Your definition of making a case and mine are quite different. IMO, you have failed to even fully present your own opinion in such a way it can be met with a direct response on merit - let alone provide factual/logical framework to demonstrate it being correct. This is still feels mostly like low-content interpersonal meta-snark.

#2 I think your reading comprehension is off base in the interpretation you are giving to Goodman's words. In order to take what she said and use it to make the statement you are making, you must add quite a lot of your own point of view to the words she is using. She is speaking of one specific instance in the context of interaction between an interest group and a president from almost a century past. The statement you are making is sweeping generalization - which can be loosely derived from one of many possible interpretations. Morphing the words as you attempt to do here changes the context and the meaning . Again. Nobody has EVER challenged what you appear dedicated to arguing, certainly not I. You are still boxing at shadows and totally misconstruing my position.

#3: Likewise nobody has ever argued that good governance does not require the input of those governed. In our system of government, that's called elections. We have 'em every two years. And indeed, every member of society should be involved in the process. It is a huge jump from there to saying people who are very involved in this process are somehow not participating in government if they are not also involved in street demonstrations.

This is where both you and Amy go off the rails IMO. The ancient Greeks certainly didn't specify that "participation" means abandoning productive life and taking up permanent residence in the street to babysit a government that would betray the public interest in the absence of a high level of demonstrated public angst. I think the ancient Greeks were envisioning acting within the social political framework to advance the needs of society - not a series of popular uprisings in the face of unresponsive representatives.

#3: Just curious, how many hours did you travel in order to attend that HCR rally ... or did you just hop on the Metro? How much did you contribute to helping provide transportation to folks without the easy access you yourself had? Rich patrons footing the bill for transportation and lodging has been a prominent feature of most successful demonstrations to occur on the Mall in D.C. It seems to me, you are blaming the people for a failure that lies with the rally organizers. Considering we are technically OPPOSING everyone in America with a lot of money; trying to compete with a visual requiring the investment of millions seems to be an inane plan from the get-go. If I recall, it took everyone at TPM pooling their resources to manage to send a single representative. Don't those who gave a few bucks to Ripper get credit for participating also?

At the same time, we got over 100 people in Idaho to come out in support of the Public Option at a single town hall. I probably wouldn't recognize you without your bush, so I've gotta ask, did you attend OUR rally? If not, why was your absence from my rally any more significant than my absence from yours?

#4 Had you stopped at the quote, it wouldn't have counted as putting words in my mouth. That is not what you chose to do.

In order for me to answer

Donal — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:23:47 +0000

In reply to So, you want to pretend the

In order for me to answer your "calling bullshit" I think it would be fair to ask you to flesh your case out a bit (and also it would be fair to ask you to take my WHOLE comment and not just a little bit of it)

I've made my case. Quote your whole comment if you want.

I have never challenged the assertion "political movements have had major effects on what happens in this country". Nor is this what Amy Goodman said.

Yes it is. She quoted FDR advising the porter's union to make him act. He agreed with them, but said you have to make me do it. They organized a march, and he signed the bill they wanted. You called that poppycock, but it worked.

The first premise is that a properly functioning representative democracy requires the citizens to dedicate their entire lives to babysitting those ostensibly elected to office for the purpose of maintaining an effective government.

You aren't very good at distilling premises. Good government requires participation by the governed. Do you know what idiot meant in Ancient Greece? Someone that did not participate in government.

The second implied premise to the Donal/Goodman formula is that people have just been sitting on their asses since electing Obama.

A lot have been sitting at their computers. I went to a health care rally in DC and saw the two or three hundred people that bothered to show up. It was pathetic. They showed up for the funsies with Stewart and Colbert, but not for the serious rallies.

It is ironic when you claim I put words in your mouth by quoting you.

So, you want to pretend the

kgb999 — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:45:36 +0000

In reply to Apparently you are so busy

So, you want to pretend the conversation in this thread here doesn't exist and instead pull up a selectively excerpted comment of mine from completely different thread - made in a completely different context? And then pre-accuse me of changing the subject? Classic.

In order for me to answer your "calling bullshit" I think it would be fair to ask you to flesh your case out a bit (and also it would be fair to ask you to take my WHOLE comment and not just a little bit of it). I have never challenged the assertion "political movements have had major effects on what happens in this country". Nor is this what Amy Goodman said. Nor is it what the comment of yours I was responding to said. I'm not sure if that's putting words in my mouth or creating a stawman ... but it seems to be a bit of both.

In the context of your previous comment, there are two major premises I see. The first premise is that a properly functioning representative democracy requires the citizens to dedicate their entire lives to babysitting those ostensibly elected to office for the purpose of maintaining an effective government. Those promoting this concept seem to accept as given if society fails to mobilize en masse on a daily basis that such a "failure" obviates the responsibilities of those holding office or somehow eliminates society's right to call on their government to be responsive. This is dead-wrong. In a properly functioning representative democracy, one should be able to have their needs met without taking to the streets. An assertion that Obama supporters must take extraordinary measures if they want their voices heard is acknowledgment that he does not recognize those voices as worthy of being heard as a part of routine governance. I stand behind my belief that this is not how our government is designed to work. If you have some factual counter-argument to make instead of this passive-aggressive quasi-insulting snarkfest; I'm all ears. Make your case.

The second implied premise to the Donal/Goodman formula is that people have just been sitting on their asses since electing Obama. You continue this false premise on this thread. An observation that one shouldn't HAVE to go through the machinations being imposed on America by the Democratic majority is not the same as a refusal to take action. Liberal activists have been working their assess off - only to be pissed on. In the bit of my comment you selectively edited out, I observe that in the course of bringing just the sort of pressure you and Amy merely talk about, Fire Dog Lake was specifically and directly attacked by Obama's team in a major financial way. This is typical of how Obama's administration has been responding to pressure from what used to be considered the Democratic core. As I observed in the comment you highlight, and reiterate now, if Obama was genuine in cribbing that line from FDR ... he has one hell of a funny way of showing it.

A refusal by Obama to respond/acknowledge pressure does not mean that activists have been sitting idle for the past two years. I think your (and Amy's) implication that they have been is unadulterated poppycock. If you'd like to join the fight instead of pissing on what used to be your fellow liberals, the independents and libertarians who stand with them would love to see the support.

Finally, I've gotta say. There is something quite ironic about a comment which completely changes the subject, puts words into my mouth, and then creates a giant strawman ... while challenging me to not do any of these things. Congratulations on the amazing lack of self-awareness.

Apparently you are so busy

Donal — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:29:27 +0000

In reply to I'm not entirely

Apparently you are so busy inventing what other people have said that you can't remember what you said. I mentioned Amy Goodman's lecture:

She noted that intrusions to our privacy have only increased under Obama, but observed that after November 4th, Democrats seemed to step back to let the new president do all the work. She lectured us that, "It's not just up to him, it's up to all of us." She recounted candidate Obama quoting FDR, who once listened to Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters organizer A Philip Randolph complain about Pullman, then said, "I don't disagree with you, but you have to make me do it." That sure sounds like Obama. (Randolph later threatened a march on Washington and FDR later issued the Fair Employment Act.)
So my takeaway is that your job is not over just because we elected Obama. We have to make our voices heard to the average Joe and to Obama himself.

Your response was:

This formula of yours (and Amy's) is unadulterated poppycock. Both in it's representation of how our government was designed to work and in it's presentation of reality as it has unfolded over the last two years.

I call bullshit on what you wrote, and not some crap I'm claiming you wrote, but what you actually wrote. Political movements have had major effects on what happens in this country. So if you can answer this without changing the subject and without putting words in my mouth and without creating a straw man, please do so. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

I'm not entirely

kgb999 — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:26:23 +0000

In reply to Would slaves and sympathizers

I'm not entirely understanding your point here. Or, I guess it's more accurate I feel you are trying to shadow-box a nonexistent opponent. I sure haven't promoted the idea that people should sit idle. Indeed, I personally commit time on a routine basis to the improvement of my government.

In what way do the activities you highlight change the reality that our system of government grants powers and responsibilities to the president that are held by a single individual ... and that this individual holds sole responsibility for the execution of those duties/powers?

Also, don't all the actions you highlight represent a response to a situation where democracy (and by extension those in charge of setting government policy within said democracy) had specifically failed to address the needs of a large cross-section of civil society? And wouldn't any set of conditions that require such drastic actions ultimately mean that the people in leadership were totally failing at their duties to meet the needs of society?

To this observer, it seems achieving a political majority has trashed the Democratic partisan's dedication to good governance ... to the point where they refuse to even acknowledge that good governance is a valid concept.

Would slaves and sympathizers

Donal — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:49:13 +0000

In reply to Nah. I have a ton of choices.

Would slaves and sympathizers have been better off going fishing and depending on the all-white government to end slavery? Should the suffragettes have stayed home learning new recipes while depending on the all-male government to hand them the vote? How about the organized labor, civil rights or antiwar movements? Were those movements also poppycock?

Nah. I have a ton of choices.

kgb999 — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:34:18 +0000

In reply to That's right. You have only

Nah. I have a ton of choices. Walt Minnick didn't go back to Washington, Harry Reid did. That was in part my doing.

The important point being that my actions (or total inaction) don't change the fact that the president and the president alone is responsible for carrying out the duties of the presidency - and he alone can wield the powers.