"I am Mad as Hell and I Can't Take it Anymore!
 

I've just taken a two week hiatus from this forum, and I am trying to put "the why", into words and examples:

The "whys", seem to be related to my reaction to long time "stuff" posted on this forum:
(I don't mean to single out these two posters....I see the "disconnect"....on the war, the media, US politics, energy consumption, <h5>to be nearly universal on this forum</h5>, in perception of one or more of the above four areas...)

More than two years later, this was posted just three days ago, and there was no reaction to it from ANY follow up post:
<h5>The "moderate", Joe Lieberman:</h5>
<h5>The "democrat party" are "extreme left":</h5>


<h5>The Vietnam war was a "noble" war, and we must have "withdrawal with honor" if we are ever to have our military leave Iraq:</h5>

<h5>The prominent "journalists" of the major media are "too liberal":</h5>

<h3>Above is the defense posted by NBC news anchor, Brian Williams, begun with criticism of the NY Times and praise for Peggy Noonan, followed by William's rationale (excuses...) for not responding on his nightly news show, to this NY Times front page article:</h3>
"Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times
The Pentagon has cultivated “military analysts” in a campaign to generate favorable ... wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/wa...pagewanted=all

<h5>The following excerpt documents the activities, financial interests, and political alliances of Brian Williams' "non-political" NBC news, military consultant generals:</h5>

So, I am wondering....as in a "sanity check"....is it me...or has this country moved so far to the right that war mongering, right wing extremists, in the mainstream, are congenially regarded as centrists, and clueless, right leaning "journalists" like NBC's Brian Williams are regarded as "liberal media types", a world where McCain/Lieberman is to be described without challenge, as "moderate" political running mates?

If it isn't "me"....if I am considered lucid, is the disconnect I attempted to describe, the principle reason why our country is trapped in the midst of two unwinnable wars and in a situation where it's daily consumption of 25 percent of the entire world's total daily petroleum production, while we make up just 6 percent of the world's population, is not considered to be out of the ordinary, much less "dire", or "extreme" behavior and circumstances?

hello again host...i was wondering what happened. glad to see you're back in these parts.

on the central question: this is an ideological frame problem.

there is little doubt that the free american populace has in general freely chosen to drift with the machinery that shapes its overall reference-set--television--to the right. there is little doubt that this right-drift is not functional, except to the extent that it enables a management of political opinion, whether co-ordinated or not, it doesn't really matter. the management of opinion happens in the obvious way, by ruling arguments in or out of the "legitimate" sphere, the parameters of which are determined entirely by repetition and the question of what gets repeated is a matter of what "fits" and what "fits" is a matter of format--soundbyte-length ideas for a sound-byte length attention span. personally, i would have thought that a side-effect of the internet would have been a breakdown in the hegemony of the american press in shaping the purview of legitimate opinion as imperiously as it had---and maybe it has--and maybe it hasn't.


in my travels through this fiction we call "the real world" over the past months, i haven't found anything definitive about anything.

what i see is people who are anxious and beleagured---they are under pressure from gas an oil and food prices---they oppose certain current policies--notably the iraq debacle--and treat others like they're weather--the economic debacle.

they worry, they see themselves as powerless--for the folk on the left, iraq seems like it has turned into a theater of powerlessness----so they lower their heads and immerse themselves in the machinery of everyday life.

everyone acts as though everyday life is not part of a broader context, but everyone knows it is. so it seems that this narrowing of focus is a collective3 coping mechanism----the result of processing a complex, uneven and difficult-to-parse reality through the debilitating narrow and stupid ways that we are fed in this the best of all possible worlds to think about them.

so folk hang onto what seems stable, even if they know--if you ask--that much of that is an illusion. they hang onto obsolete notions of nation because thinking beyond that makes them feel even more powerless than thinking in terms of nation--and they are more powerless. so folk seem to work through the machinery of everyday life on questions of local import because they see that as being an arena wherein action can plausibly be connected to reaction and not swallowed up in some huge void.

versions of the same conversation all around all the time--iraq is the political matter that outrages but incapacitates---fatigue at information is fatigue at the constant reminder that we are "free" in a way that prevents anyone from doing anything at all to change anything about the debacle in iraq--and economic pressure mounts steadily.

everything seems out of kilter, from what i can tell, taking tiny town as an allegory--everything seems out of kilter but nothing can be done.

this is a largely democrat town. most of the conversations i hear or am in are about the grinding process of obsessive coverage of the primaries. more impotence.

i think this is a strange strange time.

and folk i talk to keep wondering if the bush-"solution" will be to manufacture another crisis and/or invade iran.

so i dont know--i dont think the board is that different--except that only some aspects of 3-d life are expressed here--this, like everything else, is escape.

within this, there are questions of how one proceeds.
there are always questions of how one proceeds.
if there is a generalized anxiety, either taken on directly or avoiding militantly (conservativeland, its dwindling precincts, remains a theme park built on denial), then you have to proceed with some attention because it's way too easy to get nowhere.

or something.

hmmmmm I thought it was quieter here for a while........

If you're way out to the left then it seems the country is far to the right.

Most people are eclectic - a bit from column A and a bit from column B. When they bother thinking about politics, that is.

I remain of the opinion that getting deeply involved in political positions and parties is bad for the health of individuals and society. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had it exactly right.

loquitor:

i think one thing is sure--people are diverse in their views--but diverse enough that your characterisation of a particular type of centrist--presumably yourself and folk you know who agree with you--represents a tiny tiny snippet and within that an even smaller snippet might agree with your therapeutic gloss on their own centrism. and within that, perhaps only you see in a kind of wishy-washiness a recipe for the overall well-being of the country.

but what i find odd is that you appear to think that folk on the left are part of some political organization: what organization might that be? does it exist outside of your imagination? you cannot possibly imagine that organization to be the democratic party.

seriously, comrade: i see your views as being far more organizational-man specific than either host's or mine.
just saying.

loquitur, you've influenced me to think that you see yourself as a "moderate", so I think your answer to the "what does an extreme left political view consist of in the US, these days?" would be of interest to me and some others here.... My "point" is that there is no "left" in the US today, not in the corporate media, or in the House or the Senate, nor in the democratic party...no "left", and certainly no "extreme" left. In your opinion, are either Obama or Hillary "left", with or without the "extreme" prefix? Is Lieberman or McCain a "moderate", is NBC anchor Brian Williams better described as a "left leaning" Tom Brokawb successor in the job, or a manipulated incompetent, or a partisan "hack"? Do the two retired generals he so lavishly praised, seem more forthright expert military "consultants", or more like committed neocons and duplicitous war profiteers, or do the answers I'm seeking from you, not matter much, in your opinion? HD has a new ad campaign titled "Screw it...let's ride!" www.harley-davidson.com/screwit ....I don't see how to participate here anymore because what is considered centrist here and in 3-D seems too "McCain/Lieberman", and what is considered "conservative republican" seems positioned so far to the opposite of my perception of a "centrist type"....in the 90's it would be Bill Clinton as a fair representation... polls in 1999 reinforce it... that it is plain that there is no democratic party mirror opposite to "conservative republican" now or in all of the post Carter presidency years....more than 27 and counting.... so how, given my examples in the OP, can a serious discussion of opposing views take place here?...... Can any example in the OP be settled, at least between you and I?
Is it "left thinking" to view the OP examples the way I view them or do "the facts" serve to make my opinion of them "reasonable" to the degree that the "leftness" is obscured by the absurdity, of the OP examples, GIVEN THE FACTS....

It sounds like you're feeling a little misunderstood. To better understand your perspective, perhaps try saying exactly what it is that you want. After reading many of your posts, solutions to problems don't seem as important as the need to just rail against "the man". That's cool, we all need outlets. This is the internet.

I see the term 3D mentioned at times along with many examples to illustrate all the 3d"ness", but your summaries (in particular) usually result in a highly predictable 1D or 2D extreme bias with little room for discussion. Your presentation is thorough, but the "extreme" you question is in your super-biased conclusions. There is complexity and chaos in a 3D world, but there is also balance, harmony and simplicity, always holding it together, a bond. Bias is normal ... extreme bias is fueled by something else. Try looking at other elements in your 3D world, it may make more sense.

Yelling because "you're mad as hell" is all about getting attention. OK, you've kicked, screamed, held your breath, lectured, lamented, rolled on the floor, killed off the cyber-forests, spit, condescended, scolded, preached, whacked us with baseball bats, and no minds have been changed to your satisfaction? I wonder why?

So let's pretend that you've got everyone's undivided attention ... now what? In your perfect world ... with all the evil neo-cons and boogie men eliminated ... then what? What's life like in host's perfect world? What are the details to your solution? Tell us all about hostopia. Do we all get a fair shake in hostopia?

The country is on the tail-end of the dumbing-down process and the average person tends to be a brainwashed media zombie. Fox News, quite right-of-center, has defined itself as the new middle ground. Dissent is alive and well, but is squashed by the media noise machine, which tends to be right-of-center. If you were to assess the world on a "political compass" scale, the US would fall toward the authoritarian side socially and the permissive side economically.

American liberalism is a strange creature, composed of an anti-Bush, anti-Reagan flavor of reactionary anti-conservatism mixed with Europeanist* progressivism. American conservatism is in line with internationalist conservative movements, focusing on traditionalist social policies rooted in puratinism and a longing for the good old days of lassiez-faire economic policies.

In short, while the conservative movement has been consistently based on a monolithic ideology, liberalism, at least in America, has only retained the core anti-authoritarian values and borrowed heavily from any progressive movement that dares to rage against the machine and therefore suffers a consistent identity crisis as it is forced to redefine itself as it progresses. The lack of cohesion has left our country with a lack of true understanding and consensus as to what it means to be a liberal. I see no way around this.


* - "Europianist" is one my favorite word. Say it out loud and try not to giggle like a kid. Now try to work it into conversation whenever possible.

ottopilot, "mad as hell" refers to an uncannily prescient, now 32 years old wakeup call that was the centerpiece of the 1976 film titled "Network". You've chosen to answer none of my OP oriented questions, but instead to personalize this via a "shoot the messenger" approach in your response. I'd be happy to give you a broad "solutions" from my POV, in a thread you might consider authoring on that topic. I ask you to look at Norway's approach as what I consider as a societal model...it's consideration that it's north sea oil wealth was a fleeting resource, it's approach to dealing with the predictable circumstances when the oil would be exhausted. Norway took the opposite spproach that the US and other oil rich countries have.
The OP asks you to consider and offers support for the idea that much of what is today considered in the main to be "moderate" is supported by the facts to instead be extreme. Do you agree or not....why? Your response to the OP is symptomatic...an example of why I am pessimistic about discussion being possible here because of the absurd notions of many of the forum participants. Too many who post extreme views think that they are moderates. I think that I well support the premise that the press has no liberal bias. I asked for opinions on examples in the OP....reviewing your own response, do you considerate it moderate, appropriate, on topic? I don't expect that I am a moderate politically, but I do attempt to position myself opposite folks who consider themselves to be just to the right of center. My political positions are not extreme because they are supported as reasonable. Can the same be said of the examples of the opinions expressed in the OP by Lieberman, Brian Williams, the Blue dog democrats at work to craft a Fisa "reform" bill, or the exaample of the new $178 billion war funding....or your reply to my ppsts on this thread? A discussion could advance with your response to the examples in the OP. What do you think I got wrong in the OP examples and why?

Host, you are not center. You are not a moderate. You are FAR LEFT.

It's ok, you can accept it. In Europe I'd be Far Right, sitting in that section wouldn't make me feel any different about myself. In China I'd be Far Left, once again, I wouldn't feel any different.

Why are you so worried about it?

Seaver, again an attempt is made to make this discussion about me. Are the examples in the OP "moderate"? Do you see the difference between how the OP is laid out and how your post is constructed? Early in the OP, I quoted the posts of two other members. Then I supported my opinion that Lieberman is not a moderate....offering the evidence of his own words and his alliances and forwign policy priorities. Compare how I did that to what you posted. I invite you to take another stab at it...maybe beginning with, "host, lieberman does not seem extreme to me because he.....INSERT YOUR FACTS HERE...but you, host, seem extreme in your opinions because you....INSERT FACTS HERE..." Then it could follow Seaver, that your opinion could either stand on it's supporting merits, or....as I think Brian Williams' opinion did in the example of his defense of presenting the opinions on NBC news without qualification, fail on the weight of the evidence contrary to Williams' assertions that the two generals had no underlying agenda when they broadcast their take on matters related to the Iraq war. Why can't it work like that in our exchanges on this forum?

Are you refering to Joe Lieberman, the political has-been who will never be elected to a major public office again after shitting on his own party? That one? To be honest I don't give him much thought...



Pitty about Gravel though, I liked that guy.

Ok host, how about this.

You're not moderate because you believe 9/11 was thought up and executed by Bush & Co. You believe the first and second elections were stolen. You have also stated that future Republican victories will be chalked up to fraud in the election system. Does that sound like the majority of America?

Seaver....if I recall from many polls over the last 6 years, around 1/3 of Americans believe the Bush administration knew about 9/11 in advance and either by intent or through incompetence, let it happen.

On the issue of voter fraud, republican voter caging to suppress minority voters was identified in at least 6 states in the 00 and 04 elections. It is only illegal if it is conducted by the national party...in these cases, the RNC only "advised" state parties how to get around the law. You may find that acceptable, but then your vote has never been threatened by such tactics. A majority of Americans (from polls after the 00 and 04 elections) believe these tactics are unethical and should be illegal at any level.

Host...I agree that today's Democratic party is not the party of the 60s.

I dont think thats a bad thing. The party has become more pragmatic and less ideological. It started with the DLC push to the center in '92`with Clinton. More recently, in 06, it brought new moderates into office on the Dem side of the aisle (guys like Webb in VA and Tester in MT -far left guys would not have won in those states - and most of the new House members elected in 06.). It is reflective of the American voter and the making of a long term majority. As a result, a number of formerly red states (CO, NM, NV, VA) are turning purple.

The Republican party marginalizes moderates...the Democratic party accepts them.

While the party may not reflect all of your views, it still "leans left", particularly on social and domestic policies and issues, and will accomplish more than a minority far left party could ever accomplish.

Seaver, you've got me at a disadvantage this afternoon. I'm posting this as I am in the beginning of a long anticipated revisit to Laguna Beach. The waves are high and spraying a refreshing mist into the sun warmed air, cooling my skin and my fervor to post in objection to your points. I'll leave it, for now, with this. Unless you sign on to the idea that the 30 percent who still think Bush is performing satisfactorily in his job are taking an extreme position, and I don't....it's still too large a number to be considered "on the fringe.... extreme"....so I have to agree with dux. I don't see how any opinion garnering 30 percent or more of the adult population's support can properly be called extreme if there are a persuasive collection of facts and court rulings that support the opinion. If however, a popular opinion is at odds with math....outsized oil consumption or unsustainable government deficits or international law, preemptive war are examples.... the opinions you say I hold seem less extreme...almost trivial....in comparison. Screw it...let's stick our piggies into the pounding surf!

<-----Is it really so bad to be an idealist?

So if this is not about you, then what's it about? This is an amalgam of just about every other host thread. It tries to be about the state of political views and perceptions, but it ends up about you.
The last was my favaorite.

Roachboy, I wasn't working from my own slice of the population when I said most people are eclectic; I was working from the overall polls and reading I have done about the views of most of America. I'm quite well aware that I'm personally a statistical outlier (more educated, urban, etc), though I feel very much like just a normal guy.

The point I was trying to make is that using political engagement as an organizing principle of life is corrosive to civil society. Hamilton and Madison understood that, and they were right. John Adams viewed partisanship even in government as corrosive (he was naive about that), and he thought the french revolutionary terror was proof of his views - and again, I think he was right.

No, I don't think there is any organized left, even in the parts of the left that purport to be organized. What made you think I believed that? I was just observing that people whose views are out on the left end of the spectrum will tend to think that people in the center-left or center are righties. And never mind the people who really are on the right.

The explanation to that belief lies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Along those lines, probably 85% of the US population (an unsubstantiated estimate on my part) believe that Abraham Lincoln freed all slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. Judging from the financial and emotional support afforded to Jeremiah Wright, a great many blacks think AIDS was targeted at blacks by "the white race," whatever that is.

Your argument about what the "majority believes" is both a fallacy and a propaganda technique "Argumentum ad populum".

For reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Bush has been far from perfect, but he is not the root of all evil.

Seaver, Otto and Loquitor:

Which of the examples below would you consider “extreme” and which are “moderate”:

A) it is ok to spy on citizens without a warrant if its for “national security” purposes
B) spying on citizens without a warrant is unconstitutional


A) it is ok to torture prisoners and foreign nationals in US custody in the very small chance that it may protect us from another 9/11
B) torture is against the law and US international treaty obligations under any circumstances


A)a president can act unilaterally to overturn laws enacted by Congress or decisions by the federal judiciary
B) the Constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers should protect the public from a president acting unilaterally.


A) it is ok for the government to act in secret whenever it chooses
B) the government should be as open and transparent as possible except when it may harm national security


a) the Dept of Justice should represent the political interests and agenda of a president
b) the Dept of Justice should ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

IMO, the As are extreme, the Bs are moderate.

The As are supported by an increasingly small percentage of the electorate....almost entirely on the right. The Bs are supported by the middle and the left.

Sometimes its good to look at a body of work...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Thats about Joseph Lieberman, seems pretty damn moderate to me there, and unlike a Salon hit piece, is his voting record and quotes. Things like repealing the ban on military base abortions and the ban on stem cell research, while also supporting the death penalty. Being a moderate politically means you can't be easily put into one camp or another.

I am also honest in my own assessment of who I am politically.

I am not moderate, I am right wing. Do I fit the 'typical' conservative as envisioned by the left? No, but I'm not ashamed or delusional enough to say I'm not on the right. I also know I am not slightly right, but either middle or far right on anything that doesn't involve religion or drugs/sex (where I'd be thought of as left/centrist).

If I didn't know this I could not have a conversation with people on these subjects. I would make assumptions in everything I read and other peoples view which were not correct. If I viewed myself as moderate, middle of the road, I'd see true moderates as leftists and anyone left as on the insane fringe left. My guess is people really on the insane fringe left would be so far off in my mind I'd assume they needed therapy.

So host, I leave you with this, γνῶθι σεαυτόν, know yourself.

Can I pick C?

You are setting up lots of straw men and then declaring it 'moderate'.

I set up examples (As) that occurred over the last seven years.

But your response is typical of the right.....pretend they never happened or suggest we get past them (as others here often suggest in order to avoid a discussion) and move on because Bush is out of office in nine months.

So, yes, you can pick C...thats what I would expect.

I think its reasonable to conclude that the extremists are those who support spying on citizens, torturing foreign nationals, a president who ignores the system of checks and balances, a government that operates in secret, etc...and those supporters have been on the right.

Those on the left are the ones who are willing to question these actions and most polls suggest that such positions represent the positions of a majority of moderates as well.

Ustwo (or otto or seaver):
Three mysteries that remains for me:

Why do you consider positions that represent both the left and the center to be extreme?

How can constitutional conservatives support these actions? (I would think they would be mad as hell and not want to take it any more.)

Why do you think it is an extreme position (held by nearly 70% of the public) to call for a new strategy in Iraq, including the beginning of a phased redeployment of US troops?

perhaps you can enlighten me.

***
late addition:
Congrats to Don Cazayoux, a Democrat who won a special congressional election in Louisiana today, taking a seat Republicans have held since 1974.

Otto...here is one reason why I am pessimistic about discussion here being possible.

Which one of these is an actual quote and which is not?

My signature:

"Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality." ~ Barack Obama

Source: Obama's speech on race

Your signature:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." Barack Obama

Source: none....Obama never said it.

I assume you received the quote in an e-mail or saw the quote on a right wing blog (the only places it appears) and like it because it fits your agenda. But you were duped because it is false.

Do you think spreading and perpetuating false statements contributes to honest discussions in political forums or detracts from such discussion?

This is all very nice, but it leaves me wondering what to do with all the times you've called moderate-to-left TFP members "loony leftists". I'd like to believe this about you--as indeed, I'd like to believe it about myself--but your record doesn't bear it out. I'm not putting myself above you here. I'm not saying mine does, I'm just saying yours doesn't.

See, I think pretty much ALL human beings (and no, I don't think there are exceptions) think that their views are right and true, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and probably stupid. And since MY view is the RIGHT one, it's obviously middle-of-the-road and reasonable and centrist. And most people (certainly most SMART, THOUGHTFUL people) agree with MY view.

I think that's just human nature. I think to say, "Well, not me. Nosir, I don't do that," is the height of self-delusion.

ratbastid, TFP had a lot of support of Kucinich and a good number of 9/11 was a massive set up people. Those people are the loony left. Otherwise point to me calling moderate TFP members loony leftists.

My view is the correct one, that doesn't make me a moderate. Being a moderate has pretty much nothing to do with being correct about anything, its simply a measure between extremes.

No...your view is right (as in conservative). That doesnt make it correct.

We all know that in many cases and on many issues, right is wrong. :)

oh pshaw. Clearly it's my views that are the correct ones. If they weren't the correct views, I wouldn't have them, correct?

Yer doin' it again ottopilot...pretending that you're discussing the points presented in the OP.....I want so much for you or anyone else to actually give a supported opinion of any of the points that I'm willing to agree that I am a buffoon with a ridiculously outsized ego if you will just post whether you think the two NBC news generals and the news show anchor, Brian Williams have done a disservice to the public and misled the public about their political bias.....I wish that there was more concern about the attitude about ethical news presentation from the most watched network news anchor....NBC news probably has several times the weekly viewership of Foxnews....but hey!!!! If all you require is an admission from me that I am the "Reverend Wright" of the TFP Site, as a condition or a construction before engaging in an actual discusion of the OP information, I'll gladly play the part.
If people who don't see a problem with Brian Williams defense of his two generals or with Lieberman's alliance with Rev. Hagee and Israel would just say so....and say why...as Ustwo did about Lieberman, a discussion could blossom here. I think Brian Williams defense of his news show giving two neocon generals with personal war related investment portfolios while they on the boards of defense contractors, the bully pulpit on NBC news telecasts to promote a war policy is a nonpartisan crisis level problem for our society, especially since he anchored the most watched news broadcast, while the generals were regularly presenting their views. Anybody even bothered by this, or is my ego problem a Rev Wright sized distraction for you?

They ARE? ARE they really? In whose view?

I don't have the energy, and even after I found them, it's a set-up question, since you can just say "So and so!? He's not moderate! He's a nutbar!". As someone who considers himself moderately to the left, you've called me crazy (among other things) a number of times.

How about all the times you point to anyone in favor of any kind of social program and scream "Socialist!"? Doesn't that point to something other than a rational and clear-headed understanding of where you fall on a political spectrum in comparison with others?

I'm not trying to tell you you're a bad person here, I just think it's more productive (for all of us) to acknowledge where we're insane, rather than trying to argue that we're the sanest person in the asylum.

um, ratbastid, I think if you look at how receptive most of the country was to the likes of Kucinich you have your answer right there.

host and dc_dux ... I stand by my comments. Besides a new twist on narcissism, there's really nothing new from the OP.

ottopilot, youlve refused to discuss any of the articles the opening post presented, you've repeatedly criticized personally two other members instead of discussing the OP points, even after your were pleaded with to do so, and you've failed to respond to an opinion that your sig contains a faked, partisan motivated quote attributed to Obama. This is the second time I am asking you to start another thread to pursue your take about the personality disorders you are observing in other participants in this discussion.

.....Maybe this is the point where the thread will be arbitrarily disclosed as confirmation that it has been successfully sabotaged by those who posted here with no inclination to discuss what Brian Williams' defense of his two necon generals masquerading as apolitical network news military analysts is telling us about the agenda of the nation's most frequently viewed newscaster.

I thought the thread was about Joe Lieberman not being a moderate.....

:paranoid:

You asked if it was 'you' host.

Yes, its you, sorry you didn't like the answer.

I meant to write "arbitrarily closed", not disclosed.....
Ustwo, if you're posting the opinion you seem to be posting, the principle problem in the repetitive breakdown and disconnect in discussion attempts on this forum has more to do with me than Lieberman's, Hagee's, and McCain's, and Clinton's inability to differentiate between what the security and foreign policy interests of the US and Israel realistically are, and what the obligation of the most watched network newscaster are to inform his viewers of conflicting interests of expert presenters on his shows. That seems quite a stretch of an argument for you to make, Ustwo.

Otto...I am not surprised you dont want to discuss the issues raised by host in the OP (or my follow-up posts) to try to understand how some perceive "extremists" as opposed to "moderates".

What does surprise me is that you dont see anything wrong with posting or perpetuating knowingly false statements attributed to public figures:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." Barack Obama

Perhaps you can explain how that contributes to an open and honest discussion?

I wasn't aware I was asking a question.

there is a problem here--i think it has alot to do with politics in the broader sense as they play out amongst a basically small and static community on a messageboard.

and the general problem isn't exactly new---not only are there conflicting political viewpoints at play, but there are conflicting ideas about political argumentation, about the relation of argument to data, and by extension conflicting views of what constitutes a legitimate argument.

conservatives in the main operate from a made possible by virtue of the simple fact that we, in the states, work inside a conservative-dominated ideological bubble--the "free press" works with a remarkable degree of ideological uniformity, particularly on matters related to economic ideology--you can kind of array social and political issues outward from the main ideological consensus about neoliberal economic theory---some being more open to contestation, others less so.

the economic ideology is of a piece with a form of political domination--that form of political domination--a kind of soft authoritarian system that we confuse with freedom---requires a degree of defense--so political questions that are too fundamentally problematic get atomized--witness the war in iraq, which by any sane standard should have long ago resulted in a significant legitimation problem for the entire political order. but it hasn't. why is that?

because conservative forms of argument operate against a background of noise from television and its print subsidiaries, because they repeat elements of this dominant frame of reference, there is no particular reason for them to actually argue their positions--so they don't.

folk who work from a more "left" opposition viewpoint also work with political assumptions that are not part of the ongoing blah blah blah of marketing neoliberalism as a way of marketing consent---so they have to explain more about where they come from in order to make points. because they have to explain more, there is a different kind of concern with linking claims to information.

conservative posters here in general are not playing the same game as those who post from more left positions---they never have been, they seemingly never will. no doubt there are other registers of explanation for this, but they seem to veer toward critiques of others as players in this little game. so there's a structural explanation--or the outline of one--that operates instead.

this is a big reason why this game is often not any fun.
there's no agreement about what the game is.

Why....oh why...do we only want to focus on, and discuss the trivial. I see the penchant for "escapism", even here on "the politics" forum, even though there are predominently "chatter" forums, taking up the rest of the TFP site.

The politics forum is, of course, as shallow as the focus is on the world that it reflects, yet a "how do you vote" thread, was created a few days ago in general discussion, presumably because, even though it tends toward shallow chatter, "the politics" forum, is to be avoided by those who want to to do political topics, but don't post "in politics"....as if it is blighted or diseased.

Can you imagine how much more vehemently this forum would be avoided, if it actually did what it represented to do....discuss politics, in this era of unprecedented abuse of power, lack of checks and balances on the executive by the legislature and the press, in reaction proportional to the actual level of abuse and extra constitutional executive actions?

Is it because once in a while, more than just chatter is attempted here? What are these self limiting "rules" all about? Is it at all possible that the near universal preference for the shallow focus, the primary reason the country is so fucked up?

Are we going to lose everything because we care more about who wins American Idol, than we do about who leads us, what they are doing with the authority we vest in them, and what the press is or isn't prioritizing in their reporting?

Is it "normal" for a "politics forum" to be as disposed towards trivia and banter as the non-political forums are? Is there any hope, or will we avert our gaze as checks and balances in government, and the challenge to authority by the US press, wane away?

My gaze is firmly focused on aversion.

whats the point of bitching about politics now? The damage has been done hasn't it? I mean 8 years of a craptastic administration, how much worse can it get now that Obama seems well on his way to turning this around (if he follows through)

I know I shouldn't ask that question, because it's inviting someone to fire a nuke at the U.S. or something or assassination / political coup

but if the natural checks and balances of the 4 year/8 year limitus is going to work, it's just a matter of patience.

Only if people put down the remote long enough to go vote next November.

You also have to add in that many people don't understand. Many also understand enough to feel overwhelmed and switch off. Many just don't care.

Berating them into caring isn't going to work. Jumping up and down and screaming that the sky is falling isn't going to work either.

It only makes the person yell appear to be like the crazy baglady on the corner yelling nonsense.

Host, what do you want from us?

Thanks for asking, jorgelito. From the larger "us", the potential American electorate, I want focus and reaction commensurate with the gravity of the situation.

I would like us to focus on how we know what we know, and then....on deciding what is most important to focus on, (I think it would be about our prospects (progress) of passing as little debt and as much constitutional protection from authority as possible, and as great of degrees of political, social, and wealth equality.....on to future generations, as was passed to us by our grandparents....) and then to discuss it.

Matters of whether to wage war....or not, whether government should tax, cut spending, or borrow, who to tax and how much, the dynamics of wealth inequity and its causes, open forthright govenrment, vs secretive and uinaccountable, intrusive government, should all be greater concerns to voters, than American Idol, Britney Spears, or the NBA finals, NFL Superbowl, or other pop cultural distractions.

Because we don't focus on these issues, we don't demand nothing less than open, accountable government and an aggressive, inquisitive press corps, always skeptical and challenging of authority, and the politcians and the corporate owners of the press (and of the politicians) know it, and exploit us, using that knowledge.

The lack of focus by the public opens the door for invasion of Iraq, growing wealth inequity, mushrooming national debt, closed ,secretive government, borrowing (and spending as general revenue)of surplus social security payroll deductions, and what Scott McClelland claims in his book:
This being a "politics" forum, I wish for greatest interest and reaction to issues and events with the most serious implications. "Square one", is as described above. Our greatest concern should be the implications of what the man who was the president's press secretary....a man with recent six years experience responding to challenges of the white house press corps, wrote about them....and it's not....not here, or anywhere !

I want us here to be concerned about what we know, and how we know it, and we're not. If the corporate media "bringing us the news", is compliant to, or a tool of power and wealth, where does that leave us?

I think McClellan's opinion of the press, leaves us to work harder to find out what we really know, and how we know it, than we did when we thought that the press was "too liberal", but we're not.

More of us here believe that it is not the press's job to find out the secrets of the powerful, confront them about the secrets, and then report their findings to the public.

I would like us here to all be skeptical of both McCain and Obama..... not as partisans, but as informed, curious participants, with high ethical standards and low tolerance for questionable conduct, compromised judgment, dubious scources of money and of political influence. Who do these two guys who want to be our president, "owe"? Who "greased" the rails they rode to rise be the contenders for the office of president, they are now?

We could be discussing how much it matters where they decided to go for the money and influence required to get them to where they are now.... the winner will be appointing approx. 3000 people to staff and operate the executive branch....do these men have good character, and are they most likley good judges of who has good character.....or not?But I did this thread because I don't think we even attempt to prioritize the issues we devote the most attention on here, we just kind of fall into exchanging posts, and it sinks to a level, IMO, more fitting for a general discussion in a country not clearly at a critical, political/economic/foreign policy crossroads.

I don't think we've reacted to the "bombshell" from Scott McClellan and from the NY Times reporting about the major broadcast networks unqualified presentation of pentagon propaganda puppets....nearly 5000 appearances "on air". Everyday that the broadcast networks continue not to report this "lapse", since the April 20, NY Times article about this "psy-op" confirms how serious of a betrayal to the public trust, these "sock puppet", "retired generals on TEEVEE", really was.

it's bigger than this, host.
i have been thinking--and have argued here, but in fragmented form from time to time--that we are careening toward the end of neoliberalism and will confront a situation which that ideology has wrought that provides few easy responses. the leading edge of what's coming is probably the growing international food crisis.

this working paper from the council of foreign affairs gives a good cliff-notes summary of the current problems, their causes and possible ways to address them:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16289/

check it out.

i say cliff-notes because the paper does not adequately focus on the extent to which this problem is a direct result of patterns of american policy, particularly if you assume that the imf has been an extension of it and that structural adjustment (the most visible and often brutal edge of that policy) has been a principal wedge forcing countries into dependence on dumped american over-production---but it does point out very clearly that (a) the present system is a neo-colonial order that operates primarily to the benefit of american corporate agriculture; (b) that these same corporate interests (think monsanto, cargill, etc) are also the primary beneficiaries of massive amerian subsidies of farm production (c) that american transportation companies benefit significantly from the present system of "food charity"--which is (d) a system that allows for food aid to be delivered in the form of crops and not funds so that (e) it is about maintaining dependence and not breaking it---about 20 pages into the white paper, you find the example of malawi this past year, which is a good little summary of the problem.

what the paper recommends is a shift away from agricultural aid in foodstuffs alone as part of a broader proposal that food production be decentralized, that food autonomy be made a fundamental political goal around the world.

this is the beginning of the end of the neo-liberal colonial order.
most folk don't even know that this order exists.
to connect it back to problems of american press infotainment---the conclusion is pretty obvious: we are not being informed.
we are not informed.
informing the people is unnecessary.
we are being managed.

the remedies for the food crisis involve breaking with the entire logic of neoliberalism--which has always been about two things: the rhetoric of free trade and the reality of american economies of scale. "free trade" has meant american domination. it worked for a little while, but now it doesn't. it was a short-sighted, ridiculous policy to begin with.

but the other level of problem--to stick with food, though one could go elsewhere--has to do with regulation of transnational capital flows, who is to do it, how it is to happen.

personally, i would like to see a move to being dismantling the american national-security state. what we are seeing across the pathetic legacy of george w bush (which is a gift that keeps on giving) is the result of a choice: to use "the war on terror" as a device to prop up the national security state as a patronage network and to reconfigure power relations between the branches of government on a nat-sec state basis. the problems are the national-security state itself--at the level of doctrine, you have a theory of dictatorship--at the level of resource allocation, you have levels of military spending that are unbelievably bloated, a wholesale waste or resources, a grotesque misallocation of priorities.

i would like to see the next president and next congress connect the dots--the bush administration as an expression of the logic of adaptation particular to the dying national-security state as bureaucratic apparatus and as patronage network--and move to drastically cut it back--take that money which is currently wasted on military contractors and begin plowing it into institution building and infrastructure building that will re-diversify the american socio-economic landscape, decentralize it. encourage parallel moves in the southern hemisphere by providing cash food aid. (there is obviously much that could be said to link these logical steps)...

this is a bit disjointed, but the point i think is clear: we are not simpyl facing the consequences of the actions of the bush people about iraq, the undermining of the press, etc, but a much larger set of problems--that collectively we *could* address---but they'll require breaking things that no republican will imagine breaking. and i have my doubts that obama will be able to think far enough "outside the tiny box" to address these matters rationally.

and they are a problem even at the level of making a single post--they're big. bigger than scott mclellan, bigger than iraq--but not separate from them.

roachboy, it is a daunting task here to have any "in depth" discussion, even about "single issue", current events, let alone "big picture" "Stuff", like you posted about.

If we are serious about prioritizing our focus, there are no greater priorities than food, water, and fuel supplies...who owns them, invests in them, manipulates them, controls their manufacture and distribution.

As I'll try to illustrate....when it comes to the defense spending, lobbying, scaring us into even more spending on defense, I see that the numbers of dollars providing the incentive to "do what they do", are there...to line their pockets while further compromising our national debt level, actual security, and government spending priorities. It is a "revolving door", into government, out to lobby or work for the contractors, and back into government to steer payments to set up for opportunities after leaving government "service".

In the case of Monsanto, I don't see it....see the money flow.

State Farm Insurance, the privately held, Bloomington, IL insurance giant, with 55 percent of the auto insurance market, has owned, for at least ten years, nearly nine percent of the corruptly managed, agri-Corp, ADM:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=ADM

So, at least there is something to consider, there, a huge, unaccountable, secretive and monopolistic (only pro baseball and "the business of insurance" are exempt from anti-trust statutes...) insurer, and an entrenched (the Andreas family) management in publicly traded ADM....

Comparing Monsanto to Lockheed, Monsanto has a market cap of $73 billion after a recent seven fold increase in it's share price, but only $12 billion in annual revenue. The articles below indicate that the officers and board members of 1999 are gone. There is no significant "insider" stock ownership, and 86 percent of the share float is owned by "institutions", i.e. mutual and pension funds.

Revenue:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MON

Holders:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MON
So, on the surface, it looks like Monsanto produces profits beneficial to the "investor class", or the top half of all households in the US.

Hillary is gone, so it only need be said that former Clinton-Gore campaign chair, and Clinton Commerce Sec'ty and trade negotiator, and recent Clinton campaign backer, Mickey Kantor, has been "Mr. Monsanto", as he is so closely affiliated with that company.

But, Obama is not an outsider, when it comes to Monsanto's influence:
There is a new documentary expose on Monsanto, on youtube:
The World According to Monsanto (part 1 of 10)

Of coarse, roachboy, the actual concentration of stock ownership of Monsanto could be deliberately obscured....there is a precedent for this. The rock that was turned up to attempt to uncover it, last time....by our great-grand-fathers, was only partially lifted, and then quickly and permanently closed again. In 1976, there was talk of taking another look, but that was a long time ago. Today, everyone is a "libertarian", and they all "know what they know". King Reagan would be proud of them!
Wouldn't that require electing candidates who stood for proposals like the following one, 32 years ago, from Birch Byah, instead of the choices we have to vote for now? McCain is same old, same old, and Obama is a "uniter". Don't we really need someone to represent the great numbers of us who are against the hidden concentration of wealth and power that wants to remain hidden, is using Obama as a means to remain unaccountable, uninvestigated?
Lockheed's corruption and agenda seems much more straightforward, and there is much more money in it for the "players":

Lockheed has a market cap of $43 billion, and annual revenue of $43 billion.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=LMT

Again though, institutions own 86 percent of the shares:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=LMT

How One Defense Contractor Colluded with the Coast Guard to set back It's Entire Fleet of Ships, Aircraft, and Communications Upgrades by 5 Years:

Reading the following, during what is purported to be a "time of war"...the saga of what happens to whistleblower and Lockheed program director, Michael Dekort, culminating in the receipt of a final Lockheed "blowoff" letter, authored by recently hired, former US Attorney General, and now highly paid Lockheed General Counsel, James Comey, should trigger a reaction is all of us here that causes our partisan divide to instantly vaporize.

We should be able to quickly reach a universal consensus that Comey chose his own earning opportunity over what a former "terrorism prosecutor", like he used to be at the DOJ should be thinking, asking, and doing, instead of simply "blowing off", Michael Dekort.

Comey made a choice to continue the denial and the lack of cooperation with the whistleblower who tried to stop certain death and injury to Coast Guard crewman manning this flawed fleet of ships.

We could unite behind planning a field trip to burn his god damned new house down, erecting a big banner on his lawn advising that he sided with defense programs saboteurs and profiteers, during a time of war!