Cynthetiq

shak, I'm not speaking for DK, but if I'm reading it the way that I'm understanding it, I'm tired of the conflict right/left crap. I don't see or hear the liberal/conservative, I just hear the pissing, moaning, and whining. It's tiresome, it's never-ending, it's annoying, it's stupid.

When it was Bush I, it was there. When it was Clinton, it was there. When it was Bush II, it was there.

It's old, it's tired, it's annoying and doesn't endear me to any side.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

shakran

If he is tired of left vs right, then he should not write things like "all I know is if it has this many liberals and democrats doing everything they can to mock and ridicule it, somebody is doing something right." If you don't like the labels, then you'd best not use them yourself.

I find it interesting that most of the "Oh I'm so tired of the partisan bickering" complaints from the right come when the right is not in power. I never saw "oh my god we have to forget political parties!" during the Contract with America, or during W's presidency until the 2006 "thumpin'" they got from the Democrats.

The simple fact is that the neo-con right in this country changes their stance whenever it suits them. During W's reign it was unpatriotic and treasonous to question a President during a time of war, and yet now they're whipping people up into tea-party frenzies. It was horrible for Clinton to screw around with his intern, but it's OK for Gingrich and McCain to sleep around on their wives, and divorce them while they were in the hospital. It's horrible to expect taxpayers to help people when the taxpayers will never directly benefit from the aid, unless of course we're helping banks and megacorporations run by and profiting republicans. The hypocrisy and disingenuity from the right is extreme to the point of absurdity, and so when someone on the right then comes out and says "gee can't we all just get along and work with each other," you'll excuse me if I don't buy it.

The_Jazz

The one here was a great annoyance. It was right across the street and went on during a conference call that I had. Too loud, accomplished nothing. Just like most of the protests that go on there.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

ok, it's nice that there's an agreement about this sort of discussion being tiresome---and it is---but what do you (or does anyone) propose to do about it?

one of the reasons this thread has grown as tired and stinky as it has follows from the simple fact that there's no agreement at all about the premises of a discussion.

in this case, for example, there is a group of folk who understand that to talk about the tea parties is to talk about how they're being manufactured, and to see them as a conservative pseudo-grassroots movement--and there's another group that wants to see in them an opportunity to channel whatever it is that motivates them politically, and who therefore have no particular interest in talking about these (non) events in the same way at all.

from there, it seems like there's noplace to go but talking past each other, and sure enough across the whole of this thread, people have talked past each other.

this is nothing new, nor is it a function of anything to do with tfp--it's a direct reflection of how political viewpoints have been framed over a considerable period. and each side of any given debate understands their premises as a viable place to start---and there's typically very little chance that a discussion about premises, about starting points, is going to happen here.

there are a variety of moves that folk try to get around this and force a discussion about starting points, but typically they simply fall down or are ignored (it comes to the same thing)....

speaking for myself, i find the refusal to debate starting points to be endlessly irritating. and it hardly seems plausible that folk are going to engage over interior arguments because these arguments *rely* on premises---the reproduce them, perform their effects---and often that's where the problem really lay.

so it seems to me there's a simple choice--either we collectively agree to try something different, or the endless performance of what i take to be a pathetic state of political discourse in the states generally is just going to repeat itself again and again.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

Again, I can't speak for dk, but I will continue to speak for myself.

I didn't like it for any side. I don't think it is acceptable for anyone to sleep around on their spouses. It isn't about who's in power, it's ALL politicians for me. I find that a good percentage of politicians are liars, cheats, and thieves.

So no, I didn't think it was okay for the republicans when they were in power to not point out the same things. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Not wrong only if they are democrats.

If you want to say that it's because I'm from the right because I'm a registered republican that's patently absurd. It's just as broad a brush you're waving and painting everyone with. There are a number of people who just want to get their jobs done and not have this back and forth culture war/clash, whatever you'd like to call it.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Baraka_Guru

Here is a blog entry from Atlantic.com that might offer some perspective:

What Are Tax Day Tea Parties Protesting? - The Atlantic Business Channel (emphasis mine)

Interesting. What do you make of this?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

shakran

I'm not accusing you of anything, but then you stepped in on comments that I was directing at someone else and took on that mantle yourself. That isn't my fault.

I'm tired of the idiotic partisanship myself, but to discuss this particular issue without discussing the partisanship is like discussing the moon landing without discussing NASA. The two are intimately intertwined, because this whole Tea Party thing is a GOP plot to whip up the stupid into a frenzy.

ratbastid

Seriously. You should have seen the Whigs and the Tories going at it.

Hell, when the Abolitionists went after the Anti-Abolitionists, it started a civil war. (Oversimplification, I know, but stay with me.)

Folks: politics is a zero sum game. It's fundamentally competitive. There are winners and there are losers. Has been since a LEAST ancient Rome. To now come along and say "can't we all get along?" is ludicrous. There's no such thing as "post-partisan". There could be a candidate that has broad appeal across party lines, but that's not "post-partisan", that's just a very popular candidate. One guess who I'm talking about.

The fact is, the Democrats won and the Republicans lost. Them's the facts. To whatever degree the Republican Party represents conservatism, conservatism lost.

On a scale of one to ten, if you're a two and you're out BEING a two, you're fine. Life's working. What doesn't work is if you're a ten and you're pretending you're a two, or if you're a two pretending to be a ten. The Republican Party needs to start owning their current minority status. MAYBE from there they can rebuild something that will have some power in the future. But this "silent majority" bullshit they're trying to pull is going to lock in their loser status for the long haul.

A little free advice from somebody who wouldn't mind them doing that.

Cynthetiq

I didn't take it as an accusation, just a broad stroke.

What I do find is that history removes the back and forth. It is still there but it's not as "24/7/365" in the books, it's a paragraph or maybe even a sentence.

I am utterly appalled at this statement, "My money is disappearing," said one protester, Marilyn Henretty 70, a retiree. "We are tired of being taxed without representation." since she obviously has NO FREAKING idea as to what she's talking about. Unless she lives in DC, she's absolutely wrong.

As far as the teabaggers are concerned, I'm looking forward to reading or watching a few minutes of the stupidity on TV. I don't see the correlation from the original Boston Tea Party, to the one foisted upon the current people. They aren't representative of the same or even similar value systems. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if this was how we wound up with Woodstock II, trying to recapture that lightning in a bottle without one's own foray into something original.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dippin

While this is generally correct, in this very limited case of the tea parties, even using a similar set of agreements some choose to ignore the consequences of their own positions.

For example, setting aside the whole issues of whether or not the state should be smaller, whether or not these protests are fabricated and whether or not they are simply partisan hackery: even if we start with the premise that the federal government should be small, there is a very large number of people who want this sort of miraculous small state while keeping its biggest programs alive. It is entirely inconsistent to demand lower taxes and a smaller state at the same time one wants universal health care and free college. Or even demanding lower taxes while keeping medicare and the military intact.

SecretMethod70

Can you estimate the number of people? I considered going out of curiosity but decided it wasn't worth the time or gas.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Rekna

Here are images from DC. One of these is the tea party protest and another is for woman's reproductive rights. I'll leave it to the reader figure out which is which.

The_Jazz

500? It filled Federal Plaza but not totally. There was lots of room around the flamingo, and the crowd wasn't even close to the post office. The immigration marches a couple of years ago were MUCH, MUCH larger.

To put it another way, it didn't disrupt traffic in The Loop one bit.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

fresnelly

Thanks Baraka!

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

Derwood

then why do you believe in letting a state's anti-gay population force their beliefs on its gay population? why are you okay with Ohio's anti-smokers forcing their will on you? How is this better at the state level than at the federal level? States aren't unified blocs of population with similar beliefs no matter how much you'd like to believe they are.

roachboy

baraka: that amounts to a version of the anxiety theory i was running out earlier, but at least has the advantage of linking it to something vaguely related to the tea party sloganeering---and it would explain, were it a correct interpretation, why the objectives outlined by the organizers seem to be unhinged from reality in the present.

what i think that analysis underplays is the extent to which the teaparty thing is also about an asserting of political/ideological continuity in a space that seems not to allow for it. in this, there'd also be a therapeutic function, but it wouldn't be linked to the slogans in the sense that the slogans would not be about anything but themselves, and wouldn't have to be about anything but themselves---if the continuity idea is correct, simply being able to repeat them would be a way to manage cognitive dissonance in a sense, a world out of phase with the way it is framed for this demographic, whatever it's size.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Rekna

hah foxnews is caught blatantly lying about the number of people at these rallies.

Live mic catches Fox host inflating crowd estimate by 300% - Daily Kos TV (beta)

Neil Cavuto is caught before going live estimating the numbers at 5000. Then when he gets on air he says "The number of expected people was 5000 but it must be at least double or triple that".

SecretMethod70

That's actually a really good description which helps me do exactly what I wanted: compare this to the Prop 8 protest I attended at the same location.

You know, the one that was put together in only 11 days with over 5,000 people who then took to the streets without a permit and disrupted rush hour traffic for a couple hours, because they cared so much about the issue.

How long have they been planning these tea parties? Something like 30 days? Seems to me "the people" have spoken. Granted it's Chicago, but they apparently care about gay marriage 10x more than these tea parties.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ASU2003

They did this in Arizona. In Tempe, it was banned, in Scottsdale it wasn't. Plenty of businesses (from family restaurants, college bars, nightclubs, strip clubs, and other places) were impacted by it, and a lot just closed down and relocated. It didn't change how much second hand smoke people were breathing in, it was just in a different city.

Now, in Ohio, you have to drive up to Michigan (or another state that allows smoking indoors). That is a little longer trip.

As for the tea parties, I protested the IRS building in 2006 by myself (only for a minute). I have a great picture of it. And I have always said that we needed to pay down the national debt instead of giving out the Bush tax cuts and the stimulus checks. But, there wasn't any outrage back then. Now, only a few months into Obama's term, you would think that the tax rate was going up to 90% for everyone.

These people should thank the government for protecting them from the violent Anarchists who wouldn't think twice about killing them if there was no government, no laws, no police, no jail.

dksuddeth

Having witnessed and dealt with both the oppressiveness of the right during Bush and outcries of the left in that same period and now having to deal with the overbearing of the left during Obama and the outrage from the right, my mindset is pretty much F U ALL. I raise hell about some of Bush policies and i'm labeled negatively from both sides. I raise hell about some of Obamas policies and I'm labeled from both sides.

What sucks ass about the whole damned thing is both left and right have great things about them but y'all are too damned intent on forcing the bad aspects of both your ideologies on the other and it breeds anger and miscontent. I'm of the mindset that i'm hopeful the next civil war starts so we can start over.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

Breaking the Mold - Democrat Attends Tea Party - FOXNews.com

This was prior to today, of course someone's going to decry it because its' from Fox, in 3, 2, 1...

but I have read other democrats on Facebook saying they went to tea parties not as observers but as protesters.

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Interesting, being marginalized by both sides because it's staying the line of what's wrong instead of it's only wrong when X party does it.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

i've made no pretense of my fiscal conservatism on here as well as my social liberalism, but to some people elsewhere i'm either a libertarian because i'm a disgruntled or ineffective republican, or i'm independent because I don't want to be labeled a socialist, which is hilarious given my fiscal conservatism but some people are just plain moronic.

so yes, it sucks being marginalized at both ends because I don't completely agree with either left or right.

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

like i said, i'm labeled by both sides when they refuse to see that i've criticized both sides.

I am tired of the partisan bickering. I'm tired of the false labeling I get from both sides. If you don't like the labeling that I give you, maybe that should make you reconsider what it is you really don't like.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

SecretMethod70

Oh I understand why it's better to do it state-wide, I'm just not sure why pan thinks it's better to do it statewide.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

FuglyStick

The GOP needs to be spanked like the 5 year old throwing a fit in the toy aisle at Walmart.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

dksuddeth

hopefully this won't take the thread too far off topic, but this is one of the things i'm tired of. Conservatism didn't lose, republicans did. Why? Because they weren't conservative. Liberals/democrats seem to purposefully ignore even the pretense of that possibility. Why? I'm sure it's likely to do with making themselves feel more positive about their movement, I don't know for sure though.

Again, conservatism didn't lose, the republicans lost because they weren't conservative.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ASU2003

Didn't the real conservatives lose in the primaries?

shakran

No, actually, this Liberal will heartily agree with you. For 3 decades the republican party has been hijacked by neocons masquerading as conservatives, when in fact they spend far more than the liberals ever dreamed of, only their spending tends to go to crap that doesn't help the society they govern. They lost this election because all the asinine "give everything to the rich and fuck everybody else" policies they've been ramming through over the years finally came home to roost and killed the economy.

ASU2003

We need to start the TFP party. I gave up in 2000 trying to be for one side or the other. I would be a green libertarian who agrees with the work less party (in Canada), sex party (in Australia), and pro-health party (in England). And add in some one child rules from China, and technology from Japan/Korea, we are all humans and live on this small planet from the UN, and anti outdoor advertisements from North Korea, and it might come close to representing me. But, there probably aren't too many others who are exactly like me.

I'm not thrilled at the situation we find ourselves in either, but I know there are policies that I agree with and some that I don't like. I live a moral conservative life, and can fake it to be accepted by them, but in my own life, I am a far left socially free hippy. Anything goes in my life on-line where it can't be traced back to my real life. I have no problem with guns, gay marriage, abortion, torture, wiretaps, stem cell research or strippers. Prostitution (would a woman want to do this if it wasn't for the money?), pollution, excessive consumption of oil/electricity, and corporations telling me what I can do don't sit very well with me.

dksuddeth

Thank you good sir. this was about 85% of the reason republicans got shitcanned.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dippin

Though I disagree with it, I have a lot of respect for a true libertarian message. I've read and taught Hayek, and I have an appreciation for him.

The problem is that the republican party and most of the most vocal "conservative movement" (focus on the family, rick warren, the prop 8 crowd, club for growth, the randian cult) are only libertarian when it comes to the pro business part. When it comes to the police state, civil liberties, busting unions or funding for their own pet causes, they love them some state money.

Derwood

Based on the photos I saw today, the nut-jobs were out in full force

shakran

The trouble with your desire to eliminate partisanship is that we have 2 viable parties in this country, and neither ever agrees with the other. If you want to eliminate partisanship, you have to eliminate the stranglehold the 2 parties have on the political system - something you can't do until we institute instant runoff elections so that a vote for Nader or Perot or whichever non-democan/republicrat is running isn't a "lost" vote.

But, I think the Republicrats like being in power, so. . good luck ever seeing that happen, because no matter what the American people simply will not rise up and demand it.

Willravel

I just got back from the San Jose Tea party. I had a blast.



People started showing up around 3 or so and the rally got started at about 5. KSFO, the local conservative radio station, sponsored the entire event, taking responsibility for putting out the word, setting up a few booths, supplying a sound system, and having several of their hosts speak.

I would guess there were about 400 or so Tea Party-ers there and about 50-70 amnesty protesters.



I know what you're all wondering: what was said?

It was a Republican rally. They talked about all the exact same things McCain and Palin talked about during the 2008 election. And the people that showed up represented myriad Republican viewpoints. There were pro-lifers, anti-bail outers, anti-immigrationers, anti-taxers, but mostly just anti-Obamists. I'd say about 80% of the people there were just there to be Republican. There was little to no libertarian presence I could discern. I have to tell you how incredibly disappointed I am. While it was a blast to have live debates with people on the street, it was nothing new and had no link to any legitimate claim. They don't want to pay taxes, they don't want Mexicans, and they don't like Obama. Yawn.

There was one guy there to show his support for the Sharks. Which was awesome.

pan6467

Instead of endless arguing I'll simply point out, I espouse my beliefs, noone else and I do not lay claim anyone believes exactly as I do. I believe in compromise. I am okay with my rights as a smoker to be be lessened because the majority voted for it. I can still smoke in my house, in my car and outside, until I can't I am willing to make that concession. Now, come into my house, my car and tell me I can't smoke there or give me a ticket for smoking outside on a sidewalk and I'll have to fight about that.

It's better at the state level because the voters voted. And the issue can be placed on the ballot again and the ban lifted by the voters.

I believe most people are more willing to compromise if they have the choice to control their state's policy. There is no compromise in the federal government anymore.... It all depends on who is in power as to what will be law, what laws are enforced and what laws aren't. No compromise, no recognition of the individual state's and people's rights, cultures or beliefs.

You guys keep questioning my beliefs but not one of you answered why it should be a Federal case for a judge to have the 10 Commandments up in his courtroom and not one of his judgments were ever proven or even questioned to have a religious bias to them.

Why is it ok for the Federal government to prohibit a man's right to have a religious article in his office, especially if no one can prove he has bias or uses that religion to do his job?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

SecretMethod70

The 10 commandments weren't listed in his office, they were in a public area of the courtroom, which gives undue treatment to one religion over others in a government building. While it doesn't necessarily violate the letter of the First Amendment, it does violate its spirit. Furthermore, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to promote the 10 commandments and the Abrahamic religions they are a part of. Such a display does not celebrate the roots of the American justice system, because America is not, and never was, a Christian nation, and the fact many people then and now agree that it is wrong to murder or steal does not mean that those thoughts were inspired by the 10 commandments.

So, now that I've answered that, will you finally answer whether or not you think it is OK for the voters of a state to decide to outlaw interracial marriage? If you don't think that's OK, will you explain why it is OK for the federal government to impose itself on the states with regards to interracial marriage but not with regards to same-sex marriage, since neither is protected under the US constitution?

Also, you say it's better at the state level because voters voted. I assume you're talking about a ballot initiative. Are you only OK with laws passed by ballot initiatives? If the Ohio smoking ban were not a ballot initiative but, instead, a law passed by the state legislature, would it somehow be less valid in your eyes, despite the state legislature being elected representatives of the people? If it would be equally valid, why is it more OK for the state legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people than it is for the federal legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people? If it would not be equally valid, what does it take for a law passed by a legislature instead of a ballot initiative to be valid in your eyes?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

roachboy

"On 9/11, I think they hit the wrong building" | Salon News

a piece from salon on the tea party thing that i bit from ms media (thanks)...

a side note:

since we're laying the cards on the table in terms of where we come from politically...i come out of a pretty hard marxist background analytically, but don't consider myself a marxist simply because on it's own grounds, analytically and politically, it's over. but i think the way i see things is influenced by this background. i tend to see capitalism in its various forms as a structurally problematic mode of production and often link situations i try to pull apart back to various structural features. i don't see revolution as an inevitable outcome--i see breakdown as more likely---this because the groundwork for a coherent revolutionary project have been pretty thoroughly shattered by the history of the marxist-inspired movements themselves. alot of the stuff i do outside of here is concerned with working out a conceptual basis for a different kind of radical politics, but it's a project that sometimes seems an end in itself. but it keeps the wheels turning.

i don't have much patience with american politics. i generally default into voting for democrats, but i see them as ineffectual, not even social democrats.
because despite my contempt for the dominant order i still live here, i hope that the obama administration figures out ways to pick through the wreckage neoliberalism has made and in the process put into motion a more equitable version of a fundamentally flawed system of systems (this is shorthand, nothing more).

example: in hayek, what folk tend to gloss over is the critique of bureaucracy, which is a critique of the fundamental division of intellectual labor particular to capitalism. it shapes his arguments for "free markets" because such conditions make of the history of price a device that an organization can use to get an idea of what it is doing--without that, a bureaucratic organization is blind to itself. this basic position is *not* restricted to critiques of the state---but the more conservative side of hayek routes it through a fear of "collectivism" such that it becomes a critique of state power. the interesting thing about his work lay in the fact that it points to a basic structural problem in the way capitalism operates--the interesting thing about how it's taken is that this basic problem is ignored, and the elements of his position, which logically fit together (like it or not) get mangled. that said, i'm not a fan of hayek--i just think he's alot more interesting than his fans make him out to be.


another aside:
the other main thing that i go back to and back to is how ideology operates, even though the term is problematic in many ways.

the american right is going through an accelerated version of the type of ideological crisis--i like the word pulverization because it seems more appropriate---that the older let tradition passed through after 1956. the left's version curious to think about, and only appears as a single phenomenon ex post facto--but you can trace how it worked, and it's possible to develop narratives that outline it, even as these narratives won't conform easily to the kind of thing you're used to reading. this because, for example, an ideology is not a thing but rather what enables linkages between phenomena, so it's kinda intangible even as it operates continually through statements and projections folk make about the world. how do you talk about this using a language that reduces what it stages to the status of objects? it's a curious problem. and resolving it ain't easy--trust me.

i see the tea parties as an expression of this pulverization, as a performance of it.
it doesn't surprise me at all that they're incoherent.

but the alarming thing within them--and you see it here too, particular through pan, who seems to think he's arguing for the opposite is the contempt for democracy, for democratic process. there's some remarkable quotes in the salon piece about this. how this tends to work is that the federal government, particularly the legislature, is subjected to a classically fascist critique--democracy is about the abstract, is about debate, is about blah blah blah: it cannot deal with a state of exception. a Leader, a Decider, is required in a state of exception. this was a basic element in the bush people's legal philosophy....the self-deception comes in the entire discourse of states as a viable alternative to the federal government, as if moving the process closer and multiplying its centers changes anything about the process itself. this is only appealing because at the moment it appears an alternative--but the fact is that you already know that it isn't the alternative you'd prefer to see because it already has a history and that history isn't much different from that of the federal government. no---the problem is debate itself, diversity of viewpoints itself. that tendency within the incoherence of the tea parties--and within what remains of the american right--is dangerous. it is classically petit-bourgeois fascist. that's why i am a cheerleader of conservative incoherence---if they gravitate toward something, looking at the options available right now, it'd be toward that. such is the danger of a ideological pulverization. it ain't pretty at all

anyway, enough of this self-indulgence.
i just thought i'd lay the cards down for a minute.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

But it could be argued the bench is his office. I'm not a follower of the Abrahamic religions but to me, I would rather him have that freedom to express himself than not. So long as his rulings are made on actual fact and law and not his religion I'm not bothered by his display. I am far more bothered by the fact that he cannot have them up because the government says no.
The problem with this question is no matter how I answer it, experience here has shown that everything will then be how I answered it and my opinion not what is truly said or the whole of the debate over government having too much power.

In all honesty I do not believe there should be any law concerning marriage between 2 people. If they are that much in love who cares. That said, I still believe in a state's population to decide by vote. it is not a power expressly given the government in the Constitution. And, with the possible exception of Utah, it probably isn't in any state's constitution either. Therefore, it should be up to the people. Let the people decide.

Now, if the federal government wants to recognize insurance and retirement /SSI/etc benefits across the board that's fine. They aren't dictating who can or cannot be married to whom, just the rights of the marriage. Now, if I live in Ohio and want to marry a guy and have to go to Cali. to do it, when I get back to Ohio, I should understand that Ohio does not have to recognize that marriage and change my will. Now if I want a divorce, the state of Ohio may nor recognize the marriage but should dissolve the it as a partnership unless a prenup iss in existence then the court just allows the prenup and is done.



Yes, I am far more ok with the people having their voice heard than government dictation. If the government imposed smoking laws and refused to listen to the people, I'd fight it. But in Ohio, you have an overwhelming number of voters saying they do not want smoking in places they patronize. My rights stop when they affect others. Them voting for a ban on smoking tells me that they do not want to smell like an ashtray or be offended by the smoke. I can understand that. Going outside, while it maybe a hassle is an acceptable compromise I can live with. The voice of the people was heard in this case. If I want to smoke inside restaurants again, I can work on getting an initiative on the ballot and work for its passage. Someday, someone may do just that and that will pass and the power in that area stayed in the hands of the people.

I do not agree with everything people want, just as they I'm sure do not agree with everything I would want but I believe in the freedom of letting the people decide not the government.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

samcol

Nice pictures.

As a Ron Paul libertarian I'm kinda looking at these people and thinking 'where the hell where you the last 8 years, or even last fall when we had a chance to nominate a real libertarian/conservative?' Late is better than never, however. I'm not sure who started these but they have already been comprimised by right wing talking heads. Which makes me as a libertarian not wanting to associate with them (although I still might go). What seems to have been started by grassroots, has already been commandeered by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and numerous other talking heads and career politicians.

I about threw up listening to these guys on the radio telling the people what the tea parties are about and what should or shouldn't be allowed. Glenn was saying things like don't bring any signs and don't mention Obama. blah blah blah

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Willravel

Thanks. I've got about 70 or so, but I'm partial to the Sharks guy. He has the courage of his convictions!
I think the problem is that they were conceived by the compromise-ers themselves. This was never grassroots, at least in the same way most other protests are grassroots. Had it not been for the local conservative radio station, KSFO (owned by massive radio conglomerate Citadel Broadcasting, which is owned by Disney, I believe), the protest here in San Jose wouldn't have happened at all. There are similar stories popping up from the other Tea Parties.

BTW, did anyone go to the Alamo to see Beck try and explain the significance of the Alamo to the Tea Party "movement"? I'd love to see the mental gymnastics there.

SecretMethod70

Except he's a government employee, and he is serving the people in his capacity as judge, not running some entrepreneurial business.
It matters what impression government buildings give off, and favoring one type of religion over all others - whether or not it affects his rulings - does not mesh with the separation of church and state. This has no impact on how he lives his personal life, but as a government official who is responsible for judging people, he must at least give the appearance of impartiality. Not to mention that it's kind of absurd to claim the entire court as his personal office. Judges have personal offices: they're called chambers, and they do not include the entire courthouse, or even the courtroom. More importantly, let's look at this from a different angle: what if the judge wanted a Deuteronomy 22:20,21 or a Leviticus 20:13 monument instead of a 10 commandments monument? Is that OK, provided his rulings are based on fact and not hatred of women or homosexuals? I'd like to know if judges are allowed to express themselves in the court in all the ways a normal citizen can, or if there is some line. If there's a line, why are the 10 commandments - which explicitly demand worship of the Abrahamic deity, and outlaw even wanting (coveting) something that your neighbor owns - acceptable, but other things are not?

I ask about interracial marriage not as a trap, but to understand your logic regarding what government can and cannot do, and also to demonstrate the flaws in that logic as it has so far been described. You're expressing - quite unbelievably - a total support for the tyranny of the majority, which would include allowing states to outlaw interracial marriage. I'd like to know if you actually support a state's right to do this, or if there is some line in your head that makes outlawing interracial marriage unacceptable, but other rejections of individual rights more acceptable, particularly when neither is explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

I completely agree that government should not be involved in "marriage," but I'm not sure you are understanding that there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Your statement above seems to indicate that you believe them to be the same thing, but they are not. If a couple is married through a religious ceremony, there are two marriages that take place: the civil and the religious. Proponents of same-sex marriage could generally care less what restrictions religions place on marriage. The issue is whether or not the state has the right to limit the expression of love between two individuals based on their sex. Seeing as how the government is areligious, there is no valid argument for limiting individual rights in that manner. The confusion between civil marriage and religious marriage is why I believe the government should do everything it already does, extend those benefits to same-sex couples, and just rename marriage to unions for everyone. Regardless of the name, restricting civil marriage because religious marriage would be offended gives undue preference to a particular religious view. Whether or not that view is the majority doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally wrong for the government to restrict individual rights because of someone else's religious views.

It has been noted here before, but I specifically bring up and would like to know your thoughts on state's prohibiting interracial marriage because your arguments are just about the exact same as those which were used to defend miscegenation laws in the past. So I'd like to know what makes your stance different, if you do not support state prohibition of interracial marriage, or if you are willing to accept the consequences of such an argument and allow the development of oppressive states and more free states.

I'm still not clear on where you stand re: ballot initiatives vs the legislature. Should we abolish the legislature and put everything to a popular vote? If not, what kinds of laws are OK for the legislature and what kinds of laws do you think demand a popular vote? Bringing this back to the tea parties, when, if ever, is it acceptable for the elected representatives of the people to vote on spending money, and when must that spending be brought to a popular vote? After all, your primary complaint from what I can tell is that you feel your voice isn't being heard. I'd like to understand where you draw the line between being heard through electing a representative and demanding each individual voice be counted. How do you think the rights of minorities should be protected from an unfriendly majority? As far as I can tell, your answer is that they should just move to a different state. Am I missing something?

Finally, you believe in letting the people decide and not the government. Is the elected representative government not an extension of the people? If not, why do we have such government at all? So again, do you support ballot initiatives for all laws, or is there something I'm missing here? It seems to me that you're arguing for each state to be its own direct democracy, loosely tied together by a federal government which exists in name only. I'd like to understand if you're arguing for something else, and what the logic is behind that argument.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling