June 14, 2012

When is an admission not an admission?

when it's already common knowledge.

The Liberal" media http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206140005 myth was one of the first shiny objects the rightwingnut monied interests hypnotised their gullible minions with decades ago. I've never been able to figure out how Bush survived it.

It's "liberal" like the Mutt is a centrist, or BHO a socialist.

Politico Reporter Admits The Press Is Covering For Republican Obstructionism
videoby Tommy Christopher | 11:18 am, June 14th, 2012
» 133 comments Against overwhelming evidence that Republicans have plotted to obstruct everything President Obama does, even the things they agree with, the mainstream media has stubbornly insisted that “both sides” are the problem, that there’s just a “polarization” problem in DC. In an interview on Current TV’s The War Room with Jennifer Granholm, Politico‘s Joe Williams says that the press has been cowed into this perversion of “objectivity” by a right-wing that specializes in working the ref (I’m paraphrasing, of course).

more here http://www.mediaite.com/tv/politico-reporter-admits-the-press-is-covering-for-republican-obstructionism/

June 14, 2012

Join the growing crowd

please

I've been battling the proponents and supporters of it since the Clinton days.

What the "man in the street" variety of this can't or wont' understand, is that it is the proximate cause of disillusionment and disenchantment BHO is suffering from on the left. The reaon why this is particularly acute now, as opposed to when the DLC-types launched their mission to allow the tendrils of corporate control to infiltrate the dem party during the Clinton years, was because of the bubble-induced economic joy lacking now, and because after the Bush disaster, they were abnormally high on the remedy BHO represented. (One of the reasons I was encouraged to vote for him, was because he told the DLC to take his name off their member list.) Collectively and individually emotionally, BHO supporters had much farther to fall given the heights hope and change reached, and it is the extra hard landing in reality the many stories like this one resulted in, that makes them "hurt" all the more -- the being "duped" element notwithstanding.

THe truly sad part is, following this "happy v content" model, is that even for those of us that avoided the starry-eyed love affair with him (happy, happy, happy) there's been such a long list of things like this that have accumulated, that even "contentment" is completely outta reach, leaving him little at this point for his reelection prospects but far more voting against the kook Romney, and not for him.

THis is why I've long thought and argued in the wake of the too little stimulus, ACA, and his support for the catfood commission, that fear of rightwingnuttery is the only trump card he has left, and he the only choice we have.

What the "purist" don't realize, is the intregal role all of this plays in the moving of DC and the ideological center line further rightward, and the policy goals of those on the left therefore further outta reach. At this point we'll be lucky but certainly not
"content", to keep things like SS and Medicare intact.

It kinda parallels the "First they came for the ... and I said nothing" line, and was maintained by the same evil apathy they display today when they get on board with things like "kill lists" they'd surely have condemned during the Bush years, given the innocent lives lost as a result of it.

The worst part about it is, they have the audacity to condemn those that condemn or even "mildly criticise" legitimately things that have an incontrovertibly factually and easily defensible moral foundation.

This is why I've been telling lefties and righties alike for the last ten years, that fascism is encroaching, and Bush merely put a militaristic face on it lacked in magnitude prior to his administration.

To those like you I've said said http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/14/michael-tomasky-gives-the-president-some-advice-grow-a-pair-obama.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet, and don't let despair get in the way of hope that are efforts will eventually pay off. Tenacity has a way of keeping it alive.

"When we have the courage to speak out -- to break our silence -- we inspire the rest of the "moderates" in our communities to speak up and voice their views."
-- Sharon Schuster

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could
do only a little."
-- Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)

June 13, 2012

I'm not that familiar with her

or her various efforts, but if indeed she's guilty of the sin of hypocrisy born of such efforts, that in no way invalidates the truth in her words.

I've been battling lefties and righties alike much like GG for the last ten years and more. The only thing I can say, is that I've only maintained friends/allies on the left despite the disagreements, not any on the right in recent years.

That's the problem I have with the lefty "purists" as another DUer described them in another post -- our disagreements can and should result in the betterment of our choices and the party we'd like to purge the rightwing attributes, policy preferences, etc, out of, not divisions that threaten unity. One can talk about and pursue pragamtism all they want, but the bottom line is principles, and there comes a point where pragmatism threatens them. If someone like GG. or you or I for that matter, can't even criticize based on principles we hold dear and apply without regard for anything else without fear of such reprisals, then there is no alliance, just an adversarial relationship that can, and likely will be, as intractable as any one can enjoy with a rightwinger, because BS like that personalizes it.

The worst part about it is imo, is like with say, the "kill list". This gives the righties ammo, since it's impossible to defend against the "if Bush had done that" charge, given it's an escalation in pres power that most of the left woulda screamed about had he grabbed it instead. Condemning those creeps is easiest and the most fun, when we're not Pharisees in large numbers...

June 12, 2012

As they should have

key to it is this

But most of the insults I get related to politics come because I don’t support individual candidates with either my reporting or my opinion writing, and because I feel really quite free to criticize even the ones who come the closest to my own personal politics as our democratic process allows. In that, Glenn Greenwald and I have something in common.

Goodness — and Greenwald — knows I’m hardly in agreement with every position he’s taken, but I will absolutely defend his right to take those positions without being subject to the kind of stupid, reductionist criticism we on the left all decried during the Bush years.

in other words, many lefties act like the Bushbots they use to criticise if not condemn for that kinda behavior. ANd it's not just the dehumanizing, etc rhetoric across the political/ideological divide that's at issue here, it's the intra-ideological stuff, because GG is a lefty as far as I can tell. They wanna give him the same treatment the rightwingnuts have their dissenters like Frum, Bartlett, and now, likely Jeb Bush as well. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" for me, but not for thee, is the manure they are spreading.

It's what underlies all the "be quiet, you're endangering BHO"s reelection chances!" BS, like the many criticisms of him of this kind aren't common knowledge, and to criticize him is gonna unduly influence the ignorant or something.

It isn't the criticisms or the criticizers that that are responsible for the divisions of the election-threatening kind they whine about, but rather the things criticized and the treatment the criticizers get from the Obamabots for choosing to air the grievances as opposed to pretending he isn't occasionally naked. They make it "either support everything he does or else" thing, or expect the treatment the likes of GG and other vociferous critics have recieved.

So protest votes (meaning not voting, as opposed to going with the MUtt) can and likely will arise not just due to the lack of support for everything BHO has done or because some of them are unacceptable, but also because the "enemy-like" status on a personal level, the Obamabots attempt to make one feel like.

They are imo, short-sighted knuckleheads, just like the Bushbots that came before them. That's why I have no use for them, not because we have disagreements about BHO's policy pursuits, etc. They'd better hope that the anger they inject into others with this kinda garbage isn't taken out on BHO in Nov, because that would be their participating in realizing a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

June 11, 2012

what balderdash

the unsupported nature of it notwithstanding, it's nothing more than a worthless criticism of the criticisms you obviously can't undermine in any meaningfull way, leaving them legitimate and intact. Speaking only for myself, I've thought since he was elected that his reelection was assured, unless the repubs nominated someone who could restore some sanity to the party. That however, has played no role in my criticisms of him, only the legitimacy of the criticisms and the principled stand they represent. You appear to be asking those with principles to abandon them, which is not just unreasonable and unrealistic,

It's also nothing more than an example perhaps, of why this rule, http://www.americablog.com/2011/09/why-is-it-that-so-many-critics-of-obama.html also applies to the lefty political warriors found on places like this.

And responsibility for the criticisms and their outcome is his

Obama supporters would answer that question by arguing that now is not the time to criticize the president because the alternative--electing a Republican--would be worse. Now is the time to mute criticism, because criticism can be embarrassing and dispiriting. Buck up, Dems, forget issues and actual performance, now is the time for cheerleaders, not critics. We can reconvene on the issues after Obama gets re-elected.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/guy-saperstein-time-negotiate-obama-n

which is eactly what this kinda stuff is all about http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/08/liberals-threaten-not-to-vote-in-november-over-disappointment-with-obama/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obamas-2008-donors-dont-give-in-2012 all of which is something he should be criticized for, including the result in the latter link, should it jeapordize his reelection chances.

and what's most insulting about it, is that should a loss occur and be reasonably attributable to a "lack of enthusiasm", that it will be predominantly because of those who noticed the "emperor had no clothes on", not the condition he's had a big hand in creating. Second to that, is the idea that one can't criticize BHO with the intent of continued support, like they are mutually exclusive concepts, because anyone that criticizes BHO over this and that haven't a big enough brain to hold both of those things in their undersized or deluded brain.

I've long thought and argued elsewhere since the stimulus, that while the lack of enthusiasm is real and justified over it, and compounded over this and that since -- which is revealed and justified by the way the criticisms survive scrutiny -- the fear of rightwingnutttery will more than compensate for it this Nov.

If some choose to not vote for BHO because of their disappointments, it's highly doubtful it will be because of the work of those criticizing him, but rather to be attributed to knowledge and opinions they've acquired on their own.

This kinda talk reminds me of the path Bushbots took, that indeed resulted in his reelection (the potential theft of it in Ohio notwithstanding) but left them collectively in the current shameless condition of dishonesty and denial they are currently in.

Of course we need to "unite", but that doesn't mean an end to the demands of a better second term and policies those criticisms represent. The idea that dems voters are just mindless and impressionable nincompoops who'll be unduly influenced by others rather than the incontrovertible facts they are fully aware of, is preposturous. I'd like to see BHO reelected too, but not at the price of condemning those who voted their conscience and because of the undeniable disappointments. This isn't a case of "perfection being the enemy of the good" but rather for many, between repub-lite, (the Greenwald/Jones/etc pov) and the real thing. That's why I say, most will go with the former, not the latter, and in part because many are awakening to the fact that that's what they've done before.

and it's his presidency that has raised that awareness, because of the diff between what many thought they were voting for, and what they got to this point.

and besides, as I recall, and will confirm if needed, that BHO himself has made it clear http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obama%20said%20he%20%22welcomes%20criticism%22&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dshow_mesg%26forum%3D102%26topic_id%3D4946549%26mesg_id%3D4947268&ei=G1bWT62cFcTo6gGVrbyRAw&usg=AFQjCNG7EtbbGwRCgmzV57Y4UGlkpE2Ipg that your pov is all wet.

which is exactly what most of his critics of the non-rightwingnut kind are doing

As for his previous complaints about Obama, “It’s my job, whoever the president is, to hold his feet to the fire,” he said. “And I will continue to do that. There are lots of issues I have with the president—mostly on national security. I would rather he have Ron Paul’s foreign policy and brought troops home and cut the defense budget and all that stuff, but part of it is I do think he has gotten better… I really think he’s getting his mojo back.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/24/bill-maher-says-1-million-to-obama-super-pac-is-practical.html

just because we don't have the million clams doesn't change a damn thing, but by all means, send Bill a letter and tell him to shut up, no?

June 8, 2012

Of course private sector job creation is alright Mutt

if you compare it to what your plans of being "Bush on steroids" will result in, or indeed, the econ policies you agree wholly with now that got you to thinking of bulking up with tax cuts, deregulation, etc, steroids. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089785/-Private-sector-jobs-grew-far-more-under-Democratic-than-Republican-presidents-1961-2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-jobs-created-per-month-by-george-bush-2012-5

Could it be better? Of course it could, and particularly if you'd have backed BHO up in his efforts to stimulate the economy as you argued for here (minus the "page not found" thingy -- I wonder if they scrubbed it) http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-called-for-government-spending-in-a-st particularly since it contained your precious tax cuts.

I can't wait to see BHO tie him up in knots with these issues in the debates. If I were BHO, I'd be asking him specifically how he coulda made the stimulus package better, other than in size -- the biggest flaw.

June 7, 2012

Indeed

I've been making that case for the better part of the last decade on the "internets" to my lefty brethren, every since they started in with the "you hate the troops, love the terrorists" and related lines of BS in defense of their Fuhrer. I've long thought and argued that "civility" is way overrated, and is actually counterproductive, given the enabling aspects of it. It's analogous to "being nice" to racists, homophobes, etc -- the silent enabling it represents does nothing to discourage their undesirable conduct and rhetoric, and actually reinforces it, because they pay no price for it.

The sad part is, a large majority of them would befriend and tolerate their intolerance, incivility, etc, in their many and varied forms, and then turn around and give me an attitude for having one and being unwilling to tolerate them. I'm tolerant of just about everything but intolerance.

The rationale for this enabling conduct has always been reduced to "but they are fellow americans with different povs, who love their family and friends, and little puppies, and kittens too!" Well, the same could be said about the nazis. This is why I was so pleased to read about how the fight in WI resulted in divorces and splits of various sort between family and friends, as I experienced back in the VN War days. Accompanying that rationale, was of course the "it's just politics as usual", like the various "Let them die/eat dirt", racism, homophobia, warmongering, torturing, the threats from global warming, etc, are just trifling ideological diffs, as opposed to the stains upon our collective soul that they are.

What I've been most curious to see the result of currently, is the "blame game" that appears to have been launched regarding the willful undermining of our economy and republic by the dems against the repubs. Now, if the dem leadership truly believes this to be the case, which would be tantamount to a connotative case for "treason", shouldn't their rhetoric and descriptive term use reflect that?

Of course it should.

Great post, and I wish I could see more of them, because I came to believe a long time ago that civility poses an existential threat to this republic. It's done nothing but enable and embolden the fascists, and discouraged those like you and I.

What you're talking about here is this http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/

While many are familiar with Orwell, the reality is the powers that be have placed as many if not more eggs in the Huxley basket.

June 5, 2012

The greatest republican ever on the WI recall

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln

As a long time union supporter, the current state of them in this country saddens me, for reasons I need not explain to those of like mind. I am however, greatly encouraged by the battle being waged in WI over it -- win or lose – because it puts it back into the national dialogue where it belongs.

As such, I’ve long thought and argued that the need and desirability for them needs to be reframed, and the current economic chaos and the uncertainty it has introduced into the daily lives of union and non-union workers alike. In what now is clearly an "employers market" with competition for jobs being very high, and with no shortage of replacements, individual job security is more shall we say, "insecure". I would start with the use of the rightwinger “right to work” line of BS, which in a very real way, is what belonging to a union is all about.

Most of the time when the subject is discussed, it is under the frame of the betterment of worker conditions such as pay, benefits, safety, etc, when the reality is it is first and foremost and ending of that evil known as the “at-will” doctrine that basically gives all the cards to the “boss”. While all those things that flow from the ability to bargain collectively are great, imo they take a back seat to the “right to work” period, as in freedom from the whims and retaliations from the boss. Sure, there are laws against various form of discrimination, like those found in the law and protected by the EEOC, and various “public policy exceptions to the at-will doctrine” to be found, e.g. http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19730501_0030003.IN.htm/qx but none of those will protect you if say, you have a BHO bumper sticker on your car while working for rightwingnut tyrant. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fired%20for%20a%20kerry%20sticker&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fchatterbox%2F2004%2F09%2Fbumper_sticker_insubordination.html&ei=GhnOT5npD6a22gXL4YytDA&usg=AFQjCNFhzi51X99SnsGiH82o3uFIAt2qvw

I’ve always thought that unionism ought to be seen as job insurance to secure that “right to work” free and unfettered by the would be tyrants, because only by securing this high ground first can the rest of the bennies be acquired. Furthermore, all workers gladly pay insurance for their health, car, house, etc, yet somehow paying meager union dues to insure that you’re not a victim of the boss and the loss of the job that provides the revenues that pays for all the rest of the insurance they need, is one of the finest but least talked about examples of “voting against one’s self interest”.

And of course, there are societal benefits to be derived from this as well, if you wanna remain focused on the lifting all boats angle as opposed to the aforementioned dedicated self-interest. http://unionreview.com/germany-discovers-boosting-unions-reduces-unemployment The reason why I think the self-interest angle needs to receive more attention it never adequately has, is because people are more responsive to it due to our “what’s in it for me” nature.

After all, isn’t it the individuals “right to work” without having to join an objectionable and wholly unpalatable “socialist/Marxist/etc” org the string the rightwingnuts pluck? I have no real objections to their “right to work laws”, based on the same “freedom to associate” right the existence of unions rests upon, other than the duty of the union to have defend them at their expense as “free-riders’.

Imagine that – rightwingers supporting freeloaders…

In the context of labor unions, a free rider is an employee who pays no union dues or agency shop fees, but nonetheless receives the same benefits of union representation as dues-payers. Under U.S. law, unions owe a duty of fair representation to all workers that they represent, regardless of whether they pay dues. Free riding has been a point of legal and political contention for decades.[1] In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation in which the payment of trade union dues is mandatory, regardless of the worker's opinion about the union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

June 3, 2012

actually it's a product of the new normal

much like the center mark on the ideological dividing line has moved rightward, making "moderates/centrist" of kooks on that side of it, the definition of insanity has correspondingly been redefined to accomodate the new and acceptable "normal".

Historically speaking, the causes are easy enough to discern, and I'd say most of the movement in this direction began with the DLC/corporate-friendly pres Bill Clinton. During his admin was when the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly curtain highly favoring the rightwingnuts was wove, followed up by the machinations of the Lee Atwater disciple Karl Rove. Thank dog for Monica, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich or the privitization of SS for example, would have been on the table in the public square before Bush tried to put it there. This no doubt explains however, the "insanity" of the palatibility of putting it on the chopping block now, despite its non-existent role in the budget problems sacrificing it is intende to cure.

I'd say "insanity" is an inappropriate characterization, given that what we're seeing is really the product of many baby steps resulting from cold calculation the truly insane are incapable of, unless the term is being applied solely to those who would vote again for the "updated" Bush/Rove policies that are not only obviously against their self-interests, but also adhere to that now famous definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing...".

While I agree with some of the other posters here regarding the role "timidity" on the part of the dems has played in all of this, I'd part company with them if that timidity is seen as the product of fear as opposed to largely being the complicity that it is in the furtherance of the good cop/bad cop game the girls and boys in DC are playing. "Impeachment is off the table" they said, despite the then and now rightwingnut friend BC being the victim of such for far lesser crimes against this country, much less humanity, or that thing called integrity the lack of which has grossly undermined the faith in government rightwingnuts exploit, and quite energetically as exemplified in the case at bar here. It not only fires up their base, but also undermines the faith and confidence those on the left have in their leaders to pursue their interests.

That's what the OWS is all about -- a brewing and growing fight against the tag teaming that's being done against us all for the monied interests. So while "insanity" may be an appropriate characterization/description of the current political condition, the responsibility for it cannot be laid at the feet of the rightwingnuts in its entirety, and the days of ignoring the role of the enablers on the so-called "left" in DC these days who exploit the only choice we have "left", even if their guilt doesn't extend beyond their guilt of ignoring the maxim "all evil needs to triumph is for good men...."

This is why I get so frustrated and disgusted with with "lefties" that are intolerant of legitimate criticisms of their leaders, like that wasn't the same dynamic that gave Bush four extra years, and the road to hell isn't paved by good intentions that intolerance is, despite being grosssly wrong and misguided.