09-29-2010, 01:33 AM | #241 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: New York
|
Quote:
Unions should be regulated for the same reason we have anti-discrimination law, to protect individual's rights. It's not me who's asking for new regulation on the unions. It's the unions that are asking for this employee free choice act. |
|
09-29-2010, 03:25 AM | #242 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
from the article linked below:
Quote:
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
09-29-2010, 04:11 AM | #243 (permalink) |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
Interesting fact: The Tea Party claims to have been founded less than a month after Obama was sworn into office. So clearly it wasn't a reaction to any actual policy making by Obama's administration. Can we be honest about the real reason it was started?
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel |
09-29-2010, 08:07 AM | #244 (permalink) |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
Not sure that proves anything. Most incoming POTUS have a team and basic agenda in place weeks after winning in Nov. That the Tea Party folks were against him from the start doesn't prove they're racist, if that is what you're implying.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
09-29-2010, 08:45 AM | #246 (permalink) |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
But every POTUS start detailing policy really during the election. Within weeks of being elected those details become plans and by the time they're sworn in those plans are well known. The fact people were actively working to fight his plans a month after being sworn in proves nothing more then they disagreed with his plans.
I have no problem with people who disagree with Obama on policy or actions. I disagree with him on several issues. The people I have problems with disagree based on falsehoods such as he's a Muslim, he a socialist (crap people open a book once and while) or he's soft terrorism. The worst of the worst, IMO, are those who simply hate him becasue he's black, claim he's not American or he supports terrorist.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
09-29-2010, 09:08 AM | #247 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
taibbi tells the story of the birth of the second-generation tea party in the tea & crackers article i linked above. the article is quite good...well worth a read. but here's the origin:
Quote:
(quote's from pg 2 of this version). i don't think it requires a whole lot of commentary.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
09-29-2010, 10:39 AM | #248 (permalink) |
WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE!
Location: Southern Illinois
|
Yeah, I'm not going to take seriously "journalism" that uses "windbag" and "turd" when referring to the piece's subjects. Ain't journalism, ain't news, ain't worth reading, and sure as hell ain't the basis for an argument.
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT! |
09-29-2010, 11:14 AM | #249 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
my my, i wouldn't have suspected a prude lay behind all these drive-by posts that display such willingness to tell others to fuck themselves.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
09-29-2010, 01:04 PM | #250 (permalink) |
WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE!
Location: Southern Illinois
|
RB, you are just as guilty, if not more so, of preaching rhetoric instead of fact, as the right wing journalists you like to "hold accountable." I may agree with your position 70 percent of the time, but you are still a hypocrite.
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT! |
09-29-2010, 01:15 PM | #251 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
fugly dear, i didn't write the article that appeared in rolling stone.
mike taibbi, who did write the piece, works in the "new journalism" style that's been "new" since hunter s. thompson pioneered it (in rolling stone). the research is solid, the methodology folded into the piece. your "objection" is basically that the style of writing doesn't appeal to your prudish sensibility. then don't read it. it's of no consequence to me, your "taste".
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-29-2010 at 01:17 PM.. |
09-29-2010, 01:35 PM | #252 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Houston, Texas
|
Quote:
Journalism is (or should be) unbiased and fair. That article is not journalism.
__________________
Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death! |
|
09-29-2010, 01:39 PM | #253 (permalink) |
░
Location: ❤
|
A well written piece. Thanks for the post, rb.
This section & many others are quote-worthy: "A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it." I'm especially saddened by the pervasive notion that many of us relying on government help, are most unworthy...especially the brown ones. On a positive note, my foodstamps will increase by five dollars this month. |
09-29-2010, 02:01 PM | #256 (permalink) | |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
Quote:
The bottom line of what I was getting at is that since Reagan republicans have been more than willing to use the Sherman anti trust act against unions even as they relax their application everywhere else. |
|
09-29-2010, 02:15 PM | #257 (permalink) | |
WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE!
Location: Southern Illinois
|
Quote:
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT! |
|
09-29-2010, 02:37 PM | #259 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
that's fascinating, fugly.
=== back in the olde days of the 1970s when there was something of a cultural revolt going on, there was a reaction in the form of "new journalism" against the fake omniscience and patronizing neutrality of mainstream infotainment writing. new journalism put the writer him or herself into the piece and made of the information-gathering part of the piece. new journalism also played around with tone. it's not everyone's cup of tea. the factual basis of taibbi's piece can easily be checked out--there's little new in it---if you've been tracking the tea party or curious about who's paying for it or wondering what was gonna come of that ugly supreme court ruling of a few months ago that was referenced earlier, you'd already know most of it. taibbi's journey through kentucky is unobjectionable. a standard trope. he does it well enough. the piece appeared in rolling stone, which sometimes still features interesting political journalism. taibbi is ok--william greider is better. i don't think anyone relies on rolling stone for all their information...it's not like conservative journalism and its heavily-funded multi-media wrap-around environment. the sort of writing that they publish that interests me---and for what it's worth i only find out about it when someone bounces me something or by mistake: reading rolling stone in 2010 seems goofy to me, particularly its music coverage---that writing **presupposes** you are an active reader of information and **presupposes** that you will challenge it--because the style is about provocation. like i said, this isn't necessarily a type of writing i enjoy. i think this piece is well done. that's the end of my defense of the piece. i find it kind of funny in 2010 that there's any need to explain what new journalism is much less defend it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
09-29-2010, 04:28 PM | #261 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: New York
|
Quote:
I had a moment of deja-vu when I read this sentence Quote:
Matt might want to hire a fact checker if he expects to be taken seriously as a journalist Quote:
The article is entertaining. It's as if a conservative reporter went to the Democratic national convention and described the attendees there as being all welfare recipients and drug addicts. Maybe Matt's trying for a job as a reporter for Truthout or one of the other loony websites. |
|||
09-29-2010, 04:56 PM | #263 (permalink) |
Functionally Appropriate
Location: Toronto
|
What I took away from the article is the cynical but probably truthful point that the Tea Party movement is doomed.
Not that the Democrats or progressives are going to triumph in any way, but that the establishment system is playing the movement for chumps. It's incredibly depressing when you think about it. He's saying that this movement isn't a pendulous swing to the right, but instead a manufactured slide of the middle class slide into poverty and powerlessness. No wonder his tone is so sour.
__________________
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 |
09-29-2010, 05:35 PM | #264 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
This to me seems like a big-picture snapshot of shifting values, both internal and external. The traditional family is eroding. The middle class is eroding. America is changing, and I think this is the kind of environment that creates something like the Tea Party movement.
__________________
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 |
|
09-30-2010, 12:00 PM | #265 (permalink) | ||||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ---------- I don't hate unions, nor do I hate corporate lobbyist. They have a job to do. the problem is how liberals try to separate the two. For example GM has about 300,000 employees, the protection those employees received from government is disproportional to the general population. Why? My answer is the power of their political influence. If it is wrong, it is wrong - or lobbying is lobbying. I prefer government to be neutral. If you don't, then the next time a big corporate lobby "wins" in Washington, tip your hat to them rather than complain. Be consistent.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||||||
09-30-2010, 01:01 PM | #266 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
You see unions and lobbyists as the same thing? I think you may be misunderstanding just what it is that unions and lobbyists do.
Lobbyists exist solely to sway public officials on issues and causes. It's what they do and all they do. Unions, on the other hand, exist to give power to workers through organization. The central responsibility of a union is to, collectively, be the voice of the workers. Chief among the goals of unions is better working conditions and fair pay. While some unions do hire lobbyists to push for political agendas, that's not the central responsibility of a union. In short, they're not the same thing. One can be consistent while still being honest. |
09-30-2010, 01:24 PM | #267 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Just a concluding note for me on the topic of wealth creation to tie it in a nice little bow. Anyone who objectively looks at wealth creation will have to see that in the process of individual initiative that creates individual wealth through productivity gains (as opposed to fraud, stealing, cheating, arbitrage, etc) it follows that all benefit. History shows us that "trickle down" is real, history shows us the power of "supply side economics". Our next move forward, will require this process to occur again - organic growth in economic terms does not lead to standard of living improvements.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
09-30-2010, 01:26 PM | #268 (permalink) | |||
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
If the problem is b, then all I can say at this point is that you should probably read an introduction to macroeconomics. I won't go as far as to say to read the Wealth of Nations, but reading summaries of it wouldn't hurt. Ideas don't create wealth from nothing. They create it from a "synergy"—a word you seem to like—between production (i.e. labour + capital), demand (i.e. a consumer), supply (inventory/service availability), and a market (a place of exchange, usually using cash or credit). • Idea + "Synergy" = Wealth • Where "Synergy" = supply + demand + production + market If you take anything out of the equation, wealth cannot be generated in a capitalist economy. This is why I said that Bill Gates didn't generate all the wealth he did on his own. He may have been the catalyst, but he couldn't have done it on his own. Quote:
Quote:
Gutenberg didn't invent language. He didn't invent reading. He didn't invent paper. He didn't invent books. He didn't even invent engraving or printing. He invented a process as an innovation based on existing elements.
__________________
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 Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-30-2010 at 01:33 PM.. |
|||
09-30-2010, 01:42 PM | #269 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
09-30-2010, 01:55 PM | #270 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ---------- How is that possible? If politics involves influencing collective public actions or views, I disagree. I can agree that not all union or lobbyist work to influence national politics - but by definition they exist to influence something or to have some kind of impact, and if "politics" in a public manner is required there must be engagement to fulfill the purpose. If a union exist for its members to play card games, I would not actually call it a union - it is a social club.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||
09-30-2010, 02:02 PM | #271 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
09-30-2010, 02:43 PM | #272 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Many unions only exist to ensure that managers don't exploit their workers with unfair wages or treatment. They don't ever interact with politicians on any level, they don't have anything to do with public policy, and they don't hire lobbyists. Their interaction with the government begins and ends with paying taxes. In that way, they're nothing at all like lobbyists. |
||
09-30-2010, 03:39 PM | #273 (permalink) |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
I always find it ironic when folks on the right rail against "redistribution of wealth" when in reality they've been working tirelessly at that since before Regean. Almost all of their policies are designed to move even more of the wealth to those already wealthy and push more and more of the middle class in poverty.
Maybe saying it's by design isn't completely supported by fact but the effects certainly are by all the data I've ever seen.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
09-30-2010, 03:44 PM | #274 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
What Reagan started was a redistribution of power. The concentration of wealth is a side effect.
__________________
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 |
09-30-2010, 03:47 PM | #275 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
the only thing funnier than that, tully, is the history of abstract "synergies" to the total exclusion of knowing what you're talking about factually or conceptually. but the funniest thing is watching a rickety chain of arbitrary statements about "history" get assembled that culminates in surreal claims about the objective validity of supply side economics.
this is "history" for conservatives.....?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-30-2010 at 03:55 PM.. |
09-30-2010, 04:29 PM | #276 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
This whole drive for lower taxes, smaller government, etc., and the resistance to the redistribution of wealth needs to be placed into context with the reality of current global economics.
It's still usual for people to think in terms of the nation state, but the multinational (not to be confused with international) corporate structure of today is widely apathetic towards the nationalism of individuals. Multinational corporations aren't preoccupied with "the American way of life" in the way individuals are. They're preoccupied with capital flows and market opportunities around the world. So what you get are incredibly wealthy entities that may or may not be considered "American," who are interested in maximizing revenues and minimizing costs. What happens to a large degree is you get a more or less "American" entity owned by Americans and others alike who don't give a damn whether they employ American workers, just as long as the employee costs (i.e. compensation and benefits) are kept low with respect to required skill sets. If these skills can be had in Asia for cheaper, then that's where they will be bought. Capital, then, flows from the American wealthy to virtually anywhere in the world and back again. American workers can be cut out of the loop if they demand too much compensation, even if it's modest in terms of the local market in which they live. They can't compete with China and India, but they do anyway. So essentially, there is a downward pressure on American income levels because of globalization, fuelled in large part by neoliberal practices of free markets and free trade. These same neoliberal practices don't consider fairness or the relative value of labour. They look at labour value in absolutes, in terms of bottom lines. In America, holders and users of capital not only maintain their quality of life, they improve it. Those on the bottom rungs of the ladder, who struggle just to keep competitive in the labour market (i.e. they go into debt just to get educated), are lucky to break even. Considering that it's unfeasible to rely on government pension money, one must have access to capital to fund their own retirement, let alone a quality lifestyle. But with real wages in the U.S. flipping between erosion and being stagnant, this is becoming increasingly difficult. So the Tea Party wants smaller government and lower taxes and no universal health care. They want government to have less control over how global trade affects those without capital. They want those who hold capital to be able to hold a lot more of it. They want less tax revenue to help pay for what the poor cannot hope to afford. This is all just fine. America's poor will have to deal with their slide toward a Third World reality. Just don't be surprised if they acquire an increasing interest in socialism. You know, that thing that does a great job keeping economies stable.
__________________
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 Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-30-2010 at 04:31 PM.. |
09-30-2010, 04:50 PM | #277 (permalink) | |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
Quote:
I disagree. Power has always been in the hands of the wealthy. It's the golden rule... those with the gold make the rules. But for years they've been perfecting gaining more and more of the wealth, much like mobbed up casino bosses upping the skim. And their wealth almost always comes at the cost of the middle class and poor. Sure there's guy/gals out there that hit one out of the park and made it big on a good idea but they're much like those scamming welfare. They make up a very small percent of the overall population. Just look at the data over the last 30-40 years- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is redistribution of wealth and it's completely supported by the right.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
|
09-30-2010, 04:56 PM | #278 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Tully, I was referring mostly to the deregulation orgy sparked by Reagan. It basically gave more power to the wealthy to do what they do...which we know is based on maximizing profit.
Deregulation was the removal of rules...leaving the wealthy to make the rules instead, as you say.
__________________
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 |
09-30-2010, 05:34 PM | #279 (permalink) |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
I see your point. Maybe it's a chicken and the egg thing.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
09-30-2010, 05:50 PM | #280 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
my theory has long been that there's more to conservative deregulation than merely accelerating class warfare. at least in its earlier, thatcherite phase(s) the new right was influenced by systems-theoretical critiques of the welfare state, which are different from the more simple-minded critiques you get from other quarters (in this thread, dogzilla's posts are consistently on this)...for that line of thinking, bureaucratic action generates crisis. it creates it (the general explanation is as a function of a system-imperative to reduce complexity) and then reacts in an ad-hoc manner to address crisis--so it's a continuous cycle of action unintended consequences action to address those followed by unintended consequences and so on. because the state is involved, each aspect of this cycle is political. and there's really no way out of it. a steady self-defeating grinding away of the legitimacy of the state as a function of the nature of bureaucratic organization itself coupled with the particular complexity of state action.
so i've thought that the idea was, initially anyway, to roll the state out of areas as a form of damage control---with the idea that over the longer run persistent social problems would require that the state move back into those areas again. so it looked for a while like a way of limiting damage, of protecting the state from itself, and this by way of a conservative appropriation of a hard left critique of the social-democratic state. over time in the states, the right has become more rigid/ossified ideologically and less pragmatic politically as it lost legitimacy because of the way it exercised power and found itself running toward neo-fascism. plus the world has changed. thatcherism of this stripe was very much a mid-to-late 70s affair, so in that space the regulation school called "flexible accumulation" during which some of the more basic aspects of what became neo-liberalism or "globalization" were starting to take shape. the fragmentation of labor processes for example and the beginnings of an accelerated remaking of the geography of capitalist organization that erased nation-state borders. but that mutated with the arrival of a telecommunications "revolution" of sorts with the net and its infrastructure and its various superstructures. now things are different. i don't think the right has fuck all to say of any interest about where we are. but i think people are freaked out---alot of people are freaked out---because basically they've been sold a bill of goods over a very long time. horseshit like supply-side "trickle-down" economics and the mythologies of american exceptionalism that they sit on...but i digress.... still, it is curious the extent to which petit bourgeois conservatives mobilize politically against their own material interests. this gives the lie to any notion of "rational actor" theory in both its markety and marxist forms. they don't make sense from any conventional economics-based behavioral model. but i digress.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
Tags |
church, conservaitive, seperation, state, tea party |
|
|