The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    stillidealistic's picture

    Hi, It's Me, Stilli - Ranting Again!

    By stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 3:17pm |

    Earlier to day I spent about an hour and a half constructing my first blog in nearly 2 months. I carefully chose my words, editing and re-editing to use non-explosive terminology, and laying out my premise as thoughtfully as I could.

    Well, maybe I'm not supposed to blog today, because my computer froze up and my well-crafted blog is out there in the universe somewhere, and you're going to get the "Readers Digest," thrown together version, instead, because I don't have time to be careful now, and I'll deal with the fallout from that decision as I have to. Yeah, I could just fore-go the whole thing, but I'm going to frickin' explode if I don't get this out.

    We, most of us, are falling victim to the gop's strategy (and possibly the dems, as well) of keeping us all so busy with minutiae, that we are failing to see how precariously close we are to imploding as a country, or at least as a world leader. The closest analogy I can come up with at the moment is that the country is like a boat heading for the giant falls, and both parties are so busy struggling for control of the rudder, that no one realizes that the rudder is no longer attached to the boat, and it doesn't matter who has control...both sides need to work together to get it fixed before we go over the edge, and worry about who is in control later.

    I am sick of wasting energy trying to place blame or make excuses. We can do that at the autopsy. Right now we need to save the patient. And the patient is on life support. (Sorry for mixing the metaphor...you're getting almost a pure stream of consciousness now...)

    I have been nearly silent in the political realm lately, choosing to spend my limited time pursuing other, more personal passions. But, I've kept reading, watching, and listening. And now I'm exploding. (I'm reminded of a joke - "Society frowns on women burping, farting or swearing in public, so they HAVE to bitch, or they'd explode!") Well, this is the result of me not burping, farting or swearing for too long!

    Anyway. For starters, the fact that more people aren't up in arms about continuing the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans tells me that there are a lot of people who have bought into the notion that is bad for America for these people to have to pay a little more. Never mind that they get the same tax break on the first $250K the rest of us get. Never mind that only 2% of small businesses make an adjusted gross income of over $250K. They believe the b.s. and the people who know the truth are not pushing back loudly enough.  This article in the USA Today should be required reading.

    Next up...Thomas Friedman. Yeah, I know...not a popular guy around these parts, but please read his NYT editorial piece and better yet, watch his interview on CNBC AND read the Times piece, and see if there isn't just some of what he says that makes sense, and can be used as a springboard for finding a solution to our problems.

    I am inclined to be pissed that so many Americans are stupid, and therefore are allowing all this crap to happen.  A really good friend takes exception to that terminology and suggests that the problem isn't stupidity, but rather an inability to access reliable information, or no time to do it. That may be true. And if it is, we need to be more proactive in getting the information out there.

    Believe me, I am tempted to join the ignorant and just float along and see what it looks like at the bottom of the falls, the country broken into a million pieces of what used to be a pretty good place to live. Denial can be an easier place to reside...for awhile anyway. Eventually we are going to pay for it. But I don't don't seem to be able to stay there for long.

    We need to quit fighting with each other and find some common ground from which to mount a defense, or keep squabbling about the small stuff while we barrel on toward the falls. I hope you will all read the articles, and watch the interview...I'm anxious to discuss them.

     

    Comments

    I am inclined to be pissed that so many Americans are stupid, and therefore are allowing all this crap to happen.  A really good friend takes exception to that terminology and suggests that the problem isn't stupidity, but rather an inability to access reliable information, or no time to do it. That may be true. And if it is, we need to be more proactive in getting the information out there.

    No Stilli. They are not stupid. They are angry and disillusioned and frustrated. Most  of all they are scared. Scared because they are so enmeshed in our socio/economic system for their survival, they are too scared to say or do anything that might upset the apple cart. And the more precarious the apple cart, the more frightened they become of upsetting it.

    Only those who believe they have more to gain that to loose will risk speaking out and taking action. Far too many still believe they have too much to loose to do so.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 3:55pm

    Frank Rich has an op-ed this morning about Stockholm Syndrome. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion. Think that may be part of it?


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:02pm

    I think that might be part of it Stilli. Another thing that seems to get blown off is the psychological factor. With people here (and elsewhere) liking to bring up FDR and The New Deal, I think they miss one important factor. The psychological effect of the policy and the man. FDR was always smiling and Elenore herself very involved with the people at large. Going out to see how they were getting along, writing newspaper and magazine columns and even had a radio show.

    Both attempting to show the people who were hurting that they did care and were listening and trying to act. The positive effect this had I am sure had a lot to do with the success of The new Deal. People wanted it to succeed and for FDR to succeed as well.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:28pm

    Question C...did you have any beef w/ Friedman's views? I really want to get a sense of whether anyone around these parts agrees with any part of what he's saying.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:34pm

    I had to think for a moment who you were referring to. Good old Uncle Milt. Ex New Deal Supporter turned Free Market Clown. What the right (and more than a few on the left) like to forget or at least not acknowledge is that we have not had a Free Market Economy in this country since the 1920s. And you know how well THAT turned out.

    What Eisenhower described as The Military Industrial Complex was in reality Corporate Socialism. The Cold War expenditures supported nearly all the major corporation in this country from the end of WWII through the the early 1970s. The economy started down hill when this support started to be withdrawn. We had a number of recessions in the 1950s and 60s and I do not believe that very many (if any) businesses had to go out of business because of them. And unlike the shooting wars in Korea and Vietnam, the cold war did not destroy it's components. What was left over, replaced or not used was sold to other countries or recycled in to other war components. It was a major socialistic business and employed millions of people.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:54pm

    Thomas, not Milton...


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 5:14pm

    OH...OH...Well...That's very differnet. Never mind.Smile


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:03pm

    But seriously. I do not watch television except the odd PBS show and MHZ Networks world news. Nor do I read the New York Times much at all. (Seems the Grand Old Lady is getting a bit senile in her old age.)


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:08pm

    I really miss MHZ network.


    by Donal on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:11pm

    That's why I provided the links. :-) Seriously, if you are uninterested, I understand. There are more important things to do in the world than read what I find interesting. But this is one of the problems, I guess. People are too busy to explore, and see what others think based on information outside their normal routine. Even my own peeps.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:33pm

    Read the Times piece. China is interesting. After the disaster of Mao's version of communism, they are finding the right balance of socialism and capitalism. And judging by the results, it's working pretty well for them.  They also seem to be wise enough not to stick their noses into other peoples political affairs. Even those with whom they have business relations. No Tibet does not count. That is a geographical argument. Not political.

    As far as Friedmans take is concerned, I am neither here nor there. He makes some good points but ones that I have  heard before. This fixation on idiotic ideals that both sides have been engaged in serve only to obscure the real problems that this country faces. Like two groups of people in an intense argument over where the Elephant is not standing in the room. Neither side is willing to admit that our current economic system is on the verge of imploding and steps need to be taken now to catch up with the rest of the world and preven the repeat of the 1930s.

    Political/governmental denial and delusion at it's worst. I predicted the China would over take everyone as an economic power years ago. Just ask my friend Bill.



    by cmaukonen on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:15pm

    You mean I can I can't go my own way?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ul-cZyuYq4

     


    by Richard Day on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:17pm

    No you can't. Now be serious...what part, if any of Friedman's position can you agree with? Or am I totally off base that he makes sense?


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:36pm

    This is entirely  the fault of greedy, fascist, prick repubs.

    A broken watch is good twice a day and once in awhile Friedman nails it.


    by Richard Day on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 5:07pm

    How are the dems not complicit?


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 5:10pm

    FOR A START

     

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/05/lugar-kyl-gop-discord-nuclear-arms-reduction-treaty/

     

    THEN LETS MOVE ON TO THIS PERSPECTIVE FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE:

     

    http://www.mahalo.com/unemployment-extension

     

    THEN HOW ABOOUT GIFTS TO THE PIGS:

     

    http://www.northerntrust.com/wealth/10-summer/2010-tax-legislation-update-bush-tax-cuts-expiring.html

    HEY HOW ABOUT THIS:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/05/harry-reid-john-mccain_n_792173.html

    OH AND HOW DO THE FASCIST CORPORATE PIGS INTEND TO FINANCE THEIR FIASCOS:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/05/AR2010120502691.html

     

    give me one goddamnable reason that repubs should not be blamed for every goddamn thing wrong with this country. They lie, they steal, they bribe, they commit more felonies in a day than a goddamn drug dealer from Columbia.

     

    THEY OFFER NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

    So we have some philosophical disagreement with Baucus; so what?

    I have seen the enemy and he is a repub.

     

    THE END


    by Richard Day on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 7:03pm

    Dear DDay. There is of course nothing you have pointed out here that could be refuted. The Repiubs are indeed a bunch of fuquetards. That's their job. They are SUPPOSED to be asswipe enemies of everything you and I hold dear, beginning with our sense of compassion for others - especially those less fortunate than us. The Repubs truly do not care. The Libertarian philosophy is extremely Darwinian and can be summed up in one short phrase: "It sucks to be you." Unless some legislative initiative serves to bolster the perceived direct personal interest of the Libertarian, it is deemed an intrusion on Liberty. That's who they are.

    If you frame the issues along the lines of Class War, the Repubs are sworn to defend the interests of the "Other Side." Frankly, I see no problem with that, and I do indeed frame the political struggle as Class Warfare.

    The problem I see in today's political reality can best be stated in a challenge I make to you now: Please show me where the Dems have made a substantial stand in opposition to the Repubs any time in these last thirty years, at least going back as far as the advent of the DLC. And I caution you that anything you might present (HCR; FinReg;etc.) can be shown to have been severely compromised for the sole purpose of not running afoul of the wishes of the Republican base (i.e. Wall Street; Insurance Industry; C of C; multi-national corporations; etc.)

    I expect there will always be a Republican Party that will be closely aligned with the monied oligarchs. But I also expect there to be an opposition party that represents the interests of those who the oligarchs would exploit and oppress. At present, there is no one standing in opposition. When the chips are down, we have essentially one political party. We need to insist that we gain a second political party that in fact represents our interests in those areas where we find ourselves at odds with the oligarchy. Obama and the present iteration of the Dem Party ain't it, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so.


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:54am

    you are not responding. I shall go in the corner and cry!!!


    by Richard Day on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 7:58pm

    I don't have time to read through all your links, just yet, and was waiting to respond until I do. But at least I got your attention! Back later, I promise!


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:07pm

    Oh Stilli I love you to pieces. ahahahahahah

    Just give one, one measure from the repubs that would help those in the bottom 80% of this nation. Just one!!!!


    by Richard Day on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:27pm

    Unfortunately, Arthur my love, I just don't see the dems doing much these days, either. We seem to be on our own.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:43pm

    Arthur, you are correct that the repubs are awful, and their crimes are many...I just don't see the dems being pure in this. Believe me, as my new party, I wish they were. But they have been weak and ineffective. I certainly agree the repubs are worse, but not by enough, in my book.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:53pm

    I think it's more that people are just tired. It's Christmas ... we're screwed no matter what. Nobody supports extending the rich people's tax-cuts. All the polls show that. Same with this catfood commission thing. What does "up in arms" even mean?

    And also too. Also. I must say, Friedman hit just the right tone as a fill-in for Maureen Dowd, no? Sure, he provided a bunch of oddly couched truisms characterized by a superficial rundown of our state of affairs from a third party perspective (one Friedman is honestly ill-suited to represent) - but it seemed to just be the same fluff. As if the solution to all our woes is to "just stop playing politics" or some other such platitude. Sounds great, but to me it's like Cheetos - mostly air.

    That USA Today article was spot-on though. IMO, the middle class is far better off taking the minor tax hit and just letting the whole mess expire rather than keep our piddly little bullshit for the honor of handing the wealthy another trillion (the poor are as well). Democrats better not cave. Fuck Obama. If he wants to secure "middle-class tax cuts" for the 2012 election, by my calculations that's two years for his ass to get in gear and fight for "the Obama tax cut". Really, Democrats probably should not go out like wussies by extending the Bush one anyhow - that just lets the GOP snag credit (while polishing the turd that is Bush's legacy). If it expires and they manage to do something on it before 2012, Democrats can point out they were in charge for the tax cuts and brand them - and if they don't do something before 2012 Democrats can say "SEE! They had The House and didn't even give us a middle-class tax bill to vote on." Considering most economists say the real burden on the average person wouldn't be great (especially considering the Stimulus offset) it seems a no-brainer for the Dems. Sadly, Dems seem to have a serious case of no-brain at this point.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 5:39pm

    Is there any doubt that the dems will cave? I would bet you dimes to doughnuts they will. I am fed up with the lot of them, repubs and dems, alike. And Obama? grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I never in a million years would have pegged him for the weenie he has turned out to be. I soooooooo understand his commitment to bipartisanship, but at some point it seems like you HAVE to at least TRY to shame the congress into doing the right thing, repubs and dems alike.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:00pm

    James Madison expected factions to pursue their interests.  This is one of the reasons that I have never understood the need to be "bi-partisan" or "post-partisan."  Factioning is natural and the pursuit of self-interest is natural.  Our system is set up in a way that anticipates factions and self-interest.  In fact, it requires those elements.  It is fundamentally adversarial, like our court system, the idea being that the final outcome will be based on the natural compromise that occurs when these interests compete within a fair framework.

    I'm not sure whose interests the Obama version of deal-making, whatever you want to label it, is supposed to serve primarily.


    by DF on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:46pm

    Have you read Obey's comments on "if the democrats cave" blog?    He sums up obama well, I think.  And as for me, I've given up on obama and the entire democratic party  - except for a few liberal senators and Nancy Pelosi, none of whom represents me or my state.  They made me angry for a long time, but I have reverted to the fetal position and I'm trying to ignore them for the moment.


    by AmiBlue on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 7:24pm

    Mmm hmmm.  Stilli's Virtual Dog ate her fantastic blog.  Yes, we understand, dear.  I wonder if that's what happened to mine?  No; not so much.  I just never found the proper hook for my diary to throw it's virtual hat onto.  Rats.  Hey, Stilli. ;o)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 7:29pm

    Not that it really matters anyway, since all the soaring rhetoric in the world wouldn't get people to actually read/watch the pieces and comment on THEM. Isn't it interesting that what sets one person's hair on fire, doesn't bother others?

    BTW, did you ever hear the story about the dog eating my son's homework? I've told it before, but since everyone is bored, anyway...He and his lab partners had a project where they had to observe their pigeons doing something or other...It was his turn to have them for the weekend, and he brought them (all 5 of them) home in a big cage (you can see where this is going.) Well, our brilliant dog, with legendary stories to tell, saw these pigeons and wanted them badly. My son put the cage up on the washer dryer, making sure the door to the cage, as well as the door to the laundry room were closed, went off to do what ever it is that teen-aged boys do. Fast forward a few hours to my daughter coming home to find what appeared to be a bloody massacre, and one lone pigeon perched shivering on a drapery rod, and blood and feathers everywhere! The dog, indeed, had eaten his homework! Weeks later I found a severed pigeon head in my laundry basket. She had apparently saved it to eat later and forgot about it!

    Come to think of it, the last time I told this story may have been the last time I had a post vaporize...

    But it was good to see you! Hope all is well in your world! :-)


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:04pm

    From Freidman's op-ed [emphasis mine]:

    Americans just had what they call an “election.” Best we could tell it involved one congressman trying to raise more money than the other (all from businesses they are supposed to be regulating) so he could tell bigger lies on TV more often about the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. This leaves us relieved. It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.

    As far as I can tell, the only way out is for the power of money in elections to be undermined.  And that will only happen when political advertising is seen as ineffectual because the citizens are seeking out more detailed and insightful analysis of the candidates and their positions.  This would also have to be linked with more liberal/progressive candidates challenging the incumbent Democrats who continue to vote along GOP lines.  And not only run against them, but win the primaries, and then take the general election (or if they lose, to have go down to the wire).

    Where these quality liberal/progressive candidates are I don't know.  It won't do us any good to elect our version of ODonnell in the primaries.  But until there are real liberal candidates winning not only in the blue regions, but the purple regions, without having to raise a small fortunate, I don't see the dynamic changing much in DC.  Or at the state level for that matter.

    If the people truly want to wrest power back from the DNC, Beltway insiders, K Street, and all the other power brokers who dictate policy and legislation in this country, they have to do it from the ground up, without the help of those above. 

    There are many kinds of stupid.  One kind of stupid is not being informed about the going ons in the political world, to expect the politicans to somehow honestly explain what something like HCR is in one or two simple sentences, to think that one can make election choices based on 30 second commericals, and that the governing process can be somehow void of messy compromises and backroom deals.  People in general have the intelligence to get it, to understand what is at stake and what is 'going pn.'  They just need to apply themselves, to devote some time to boring things, complicated things, things that make one frustrated and want to rant.  That is what being a citizen is about. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:21pm

    Getting down to basics is the ticket, Trope. We need to get the money out, somehow get back to a press that is unbiased and not corporate based, and get more ordinary, but informed citizens involved in the process. Problem is, I can see no practical way to do any of those things, and it makes me afraid for the long term health of our country. None of the changes we want to see are possible until those in power have to listen to the people who elected them, and not their corporate masters who paid the bills. Scary times.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:58pm

    We need to get the money out, somehow get back to a press that is unbiased and not corporate based, and get more ordinary, but informed citizens involved in the process. Problem is, I can see no practical way to do any of those things, and it makes me afraid for the long term health of our country.

    You and me both.  The only practical things is talking and working with our neighbors, real grassroots stuff.  Stardust's latest blog points out where we can deal with this issue on an education level.  Once people get involved in something like that, will they then begin to look at which candidate is going to support their issue on a state and national level.  Because they have invested there blood, sweat and tears into something, they will be willing to go the extra mile on things like state and national elections in order to ensure their "baby" is taken care of.  And as a starting point, convincing people to engage something like local education is more likely to happen then to engage national politics. That's my two cents worth. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:27pm

    As you say, the politicians of both parties will continue to listen to their  contributors.What else is new?

    If they hadn't done so up to now they wouldn't be in politics,, if they stop, they won't.

    It's been this way if not throughout history, at least since we learned that advertising works.

    But like all the rest of us pols have their own personal beliefs.So one set of those bought-and-paid-for pols where  free to choose actually agree with  us on a certain number of issues.AOBTW the same thing's true of a set of  those contributors who fund them. 

    My guess is most of those masters of the universe who spawned this  depression agree with us on : Discrimination, Choice, Global Warming.Unemployment Compensation, the Stimulus ,Don't Ask,Don't Tell. Why not? They're smart guys and that's what smart people( like us) believe.

      Where they disagree is on the issues that take money away from them ,chiefly taxes and those that prevent them from making more money : Regulation..

    So  get used to it. Fix the things that can be fixed i.e. that our monied masters permit. And stop wasting energy over the rest. 

     It's not going to be better if the Tea Party party wins..


    by Flavius on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:03pm

    One needs both a short term and long term view.  Just like the conservatives in '60s and early '70s had.  Take what victories one can get now.  Work on the messaging in the long term.  Develop a simplified agenda that meets one's long term goals and the sell it mercilessly.  It may take a decade to see the results.  But real change doesn't happen overnight.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:17pm

    It just wouldn't be a disasterous collapse without you.  Welcome back Stilli.

    On the matter of Freidman, reading your link is like watching one of those little cameleons you could buy at the circus when I was a kid.  It is still amazing to watch the colors change.  I don't know what else to say except that we should keep him away from sharp objects.  He is acting a bit erratic even for him.


    by LarryH on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:58pm

    Thanks for the welcome, Larry! I really have missed this place... I don't know what to make of Friedman, which is why I brought this up. His interview on CNBC really cheered me up, but left me with lots of questions, so of course, I had to bounce it off y'all. Haven't gotten as much perspective as I had hoped, but at least my hair isn't still burning.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 1:41am

    Frankly I wouldn’t waste my time with Thomas Freidman if it wasn’t you asking.  I watched the CNBC video and they seemed to be having fun.  So I guess I can recommend his talent for resilience.  After all his wife and her family lost over a billion dollars in the commercial real estate market in the past few years.  But he’s no quitter and on the show he gave a pretty good description of how one might regain that kind of wealth.  He calls it a public/private combination but here is the money quote (at 4:50).  

     “But now it’s a time to step back. We’ve got to cut where we have to – medicare, social security, other entitlements – and at the same time we have to got to invest in better education and infrastructure.  We’ve gotta do both at the same time.  That’s a real trick.”

     So here’s the plan.  Take wealth from the old, infirm and economically marginalized and spend it on better “education and infrastructure” so that investors will have opportunities for business growth.  In this public/private partnership the public supplies the capital and the private (investor) reaps the rewards.  You can shuffle through all of his throw away lines about “making things again” and “being smart” and so on but at it’s heart his is a wealthy person’s road to being a more wealthy person.  Remember the old Reagan mantra “A rising tide lifts all boats.”  The numbers tell a different story don’t they.    


    by LarryH on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:43am

    A massive yacht at full sail will swamp the dinghys in the harbor where they sleep?


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 4:56pm

    Thanks a lot, Larry. I feel honored that you would do that for me! Seriously, no snark!

    The money quote you referred to has me concerned, but at the same time, I do believe SOMETHING is going to be done w/ Medicare and Social Security, whether we like it or not. I would like to see the cap for how much of earnings is taxed eliminated and the age raised a couple of years over time, rather than a reduction in benefits. I know there is opposition to the raise in age, but let's face it, 65 today isn't what 65 was then. And perhaps there should be an exemption for back-breaking physical labor, vs. sitting at a desk. Seems like there should be a combination of changes that will insure it is viable. Interestingly enough, I have heard a number of young people saying who cares about social security, it isn't going to be there when I need it, then in the next breath say they don't want to see the age raised. Well...isn't getting it at 67 or 69 better than not getting it at all at 65?

    As for Medicare...there are huge financial issues with the amount of money spent on end of life care. We are all going to be there someday and no one likes to talk about it, but there ARE realities that need to be faced. Call them death panels all you want, but can we really spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on surgery after surgery to make it so an incontinent woman in her 80's doesn't need depends (and this question hits really close to home, so please don't think I am being insensitive because it doesn't affect me) and resuscitation after resuscitation for a 90 year old male who will NEVER leave the hospital because he is afraid to die? We aren't very good at discussing things like this is this country, where they are in others. If we want socialized medicine, and I think we do, these things need to be talked about.

     

     

     


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:31pm

    stilli, I believe the answer lies in LarryH's last paragraph. It's all about equity and justice. Before we as a country can begin to even discuss the important questions you raise, there must first be a sense that the playing field is not set against one side or the other. At present, any such discussion can rightly be viewed as the wealthy simply looking to consolidate more wealth by taking it away from the lower classes in society.

    Want Peace? Work for Justice. Only then can we begin to work with confidence upon the very important issues you raise.


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:39pm

    Wise words, SJ. I think you have that right. There's much to be done...I wish we had a step by step guide to follow. I would enjoy the work, but I swear, I just don't know where to put my energy, I don't know what to DO.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:46pm

    People are stupid.  They are being encouraged to remain ignorant.  There is not one single decent reason Sarah Palin should ever get another interview other then to encourage people to aim low.

     

    The GOP lies.  Tax cuts create jobs.  These tax cuts have been in place for eight years.  When are we going to be getting those jobs?  Anyone?  Seen any jobs in THIS country?  No!  The answer is NO!!!  An emphatic NO!!!  The wealthy took their money and paid people to take apart their factories and ship the machinery and their jobs overseas.  Patriotism is for the poor.  These hyper-rich have no flag, only their fortunes matter.  What evidence is there that the tax cuts created any jobs?  There is none, but if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.  Well I don't because I thought about it, and it doesn't take a lot of deep thought to ask a simple logical question.  If tax cuts create jobs and the tax cuts have been in effect for eight years, there should be jobs. 

    Even the trickle was a lie.  There is no trickle.  There never has been a trickle.  But the expetations that we should give the hyper-rich a billion dollars and they should return a trickle is ludicrous. Okay, that's a big word, let's be more simple and even more precise.  It's STUPID!  People are stupid.  I'm sorry to make this statement with so much vitriol, but there is NO evidence to the contrary. 

    Another bit of evidence.  Healthcare was favored by better then 70% of people at one time, and now it's nothing more then Obamacare.  Well, no one favored those tax cuts being perpetuated either, except the hyper-rich, but people will still call the GOP heroes for getting their way.  What do the people win, in reality?  What gains will they see for their support of the GOP?  Nothing.  They're too stupid to expect anything, but they'll still be waiting for the trickle. 


    by Gregor Zap on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 1:28am

    Now, come on, Zap! There is a trickle! But it's them peeing on us!

    I tend to go with the stupid people scenario myself, but I'm trying to be charitable.

    I would be curious to know how many people watched the CNBC video. There has been so little discussion, or even mention of it, that it makes me wonder. I don't know how people formulate opinions without gathering information from sources outside their normal places from time to time, and I thought he brought up a number of very good points. I had hoped, at the end of the day to know if that opinion was shared by what I consider to be my peeps, or I'm full of crap again. Where's oleeb when I need him?


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 1:50am

    For me, my opinion comes from mutually accepted facts.  Bush implemented the tax cuts 8 years ago and the economy is in the $hitter, therefore, tax cuts did not bring the nation prosperity.  The two premises are on ALL the networks.  It's not rocket science really.  There have been no accounting of these two agreed upon facts.   I have not heard anyone note, "If we have had tax cuts for eight years already and no growth, why are we still thinking their continuance will work, if we just give it more time?  Because people are stupid. 


    by Gregor Zap on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:01am

    Heh. I read Friedman just to get angry but even I have to admit that Wikichina was well done.  I do think he overestimates China's strength in a lot of ways but I think he's right about what their elites are saying.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:41am

    Friedman is well informed about foreign policy in general.Specifically on the Middle East, he's as fair minded towards the Palestinians as you could expect any US Jewish commentator to be.There are certainly some Israeli ones-see Bitterlemons- who go further than he in explaining the Palestinian position but that's understandable, it's easier for them to exactly calculate the risks of their position than for an outsider..

    His opinions on economics are sophomoric, just ignore .

    On China I agree with you.

    All in all, he's not  bad nor is he a must read.

    .

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:00am

    Friedman is insidious is the term that comes to mind. He has all the social consciousness of a tree stump, only with less warmth. About the nicest thing I could say about him is that, ummm... let me think, here... he's got a great moustache. Beyond that, he's almost diabolical in his cold calculations about what it takes to preserve his station in life. (See LarryH's brilliant assessment upthread.)


    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:09pm

    I agree with  you on Friedman. I think he's a bete noire of the liberal blogosphere based on long ago misunderstanding of his positions on Iraq which happened at the time the blogosphere was growing by leaps and bounds--people who hadn't been reading his positions before the Iraq war had started, he wrongly got a label of a Bush supporting neo-con. But ya know what? Back in the day, he got to award winning status by pointing out important stuff that few others were saying. But he never evolved to new thoughts and ideas, just repeating the same things in various forms, the Peter Principle thing. So I don't usually feel the need to defend him from liberal blogosphere pile-ons based on misunderstanding what he's about--because he's become mediocrre. Just felt like piping up this time because it's you sayin it, Flav Smile, didn't want it to look like you're that unusual. And also to let Stilli know she's only nuts in delusional liberal blogophere terms.  He often says things that would be considered liberal in the meatspace world, that's not unusual for him. It's the utter hatred of Friedman that one sometimes sees in the liberal blogosphere that's nuts, that doesn't make any sense. It's like hating Hillary for her one-time voting position on Iraq, throwing out all the other stuff like health care Hillary, calling Hillary a neo-con, etc.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:59pm

    Thanks, a lot, Arty! Like  said, I don't know a lot about his history, and given that he's made sense on a number of issues, I wondered why he was persona non grata in these parts!


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:31am

    Thanks, des. I find there are times when someone I don't care for much starts saying things all of a sudden that I agree with, so I find myself paying more attention to them. Then I need a reality check! Thanks for helping!


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:42pm

    I am inclined to be pissed that so many Americans are stupid, and therefore are allowing all this crap to happen.  A really good friend takes exception to that terminology and suggests that the problem isn't stupidity, but rather an inability to access reliable information, or no time to do it.

    I take (mild) exception to it, too, but for a different reason: stupidity isn't confined to America. I think one reason it stands out more is for the same reason someone dreamed up the saying, "To err is human, but to really foul things up takes a computer." (I.e., because America exerts a disproportionate influence, our stupidity is felt disproportionately.) Given your experiences in creating this blog entry, I'm sure you can understand where that comes from!


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:41am

    Hahahaha! You got me there! But I was talking more about the people who vote based on the crap e-mails that come into their inboxes about whatever the latest scare is, and don't bother to investigate whether it is true or not. Or vote a certain way because cuzin Elmer said to, and he's real smart about that stuff. Or (God help me it's true in my own family) "Well, I voted for Fiorina because I heard some bad stuff about Boxer." Or  putting the repubs back in power only with an even further right agenda because the dems didn't fix things fast enough. I call it stupidity. But sometimes even I can be insensitive.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:38pm