Right on the Edge: The new conservatives

[RandomGuy]

Watched this the other night. I had to take a shower afterwards.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/siu/right.on.the.edge/index.html

Pretty much the impression that I got, pretty much in their own words, and without comment on the part of the CNN gal was:


"We will do anything, say anything, to "win" the ideological war, without regard to the truth, or any sense of ethics."

Win-at-any-cost, and ethics be damned is pretty much what I see from the new right. The new conservative movement has arguably become just as morally bankrupt as it accuses "libtards" of being, if not more so.

"The ends always justify the means" is pretty much an admission in my book of the moral and intellectual weakness of any cause.

Conservative hero James O'Keefe of ACORN pimp fame features rather prominently, in his bid to prank the CNN reporter in a really tasteless manner:


Lusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/index.html


The thing is that the guy, when asked, lied through his teeth about it, until the staffer who his lack of ethics betrayed, decided she was not comfortable with the whole thing and blew the whistle.

When it became undeniable, they just quit talking.

As hard as it will be for most Fox Propaganda watchers to believe, the CNN piece went out of its way to simply give the people involved time to speak their minds, and did little to no editorializing on what was said.

That is what journalism is about, and CNN proved itself to be much better at it than anything I have seen out of Fox Propaganda.

It says a lot when even O'Keefe's main cheerleader is putting some air between him and his protege. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/01/breitbart-okeefe-owes-supporters-an-explanation/)


From what I've read about this script, though not executed, it is patently gross and offensive. It's not his detractors to whom he also owes this public airing. It's to his legion of supporters.

[DarrinS]

You had to take a shower afterwards? What were you doing?

[RandomGuy]

You had to take a shower afterwards? What were you doing?

Deliberately exposing myself to the unbridled vitriol and rather morally/intellectually repugnant pablum that passes for right wing propaganda these days.

It was quite shocking to see really how vicious it is.

[TeyshaBlue]

Deliberately exposing myself to the unbridled vitriol and rather morally/intellectually repugnant pablum that passes for right wing propaganda these days.

It was quite shocking to see really how vicious it is.

Not really. It seems quite comparable to some Daily Kos pieces I've read.

Shocking? Please. As if we had no idea real politik is our political reality.....:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

"Daily Kos pieces I've read"

link? other than disagreeing with them, what do think was say-anything/tell-any-lie about DK?

[RandomGuy]

Not really. It seems quite comparable to some Daily Kos pieces I've read.

Shocking? Please. As if we had no idea real politik is our political reality.....:rolleyes

I don't really read Daily Kos though.

After this piece I got to wondering if the nasty stuff on the left was really as bad as what I saw here. I normally stick to fairly mainstream outlets.

Guess I should find out.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Daily Kos pieces I've read"

link? other than disagreeing with them, what do think was say-anything/tell-any-lie about DK?

hahah....the fucking Daily Kos has deleted links to "Sarah Palin is NOT the mother" when they were willfully trashing Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

Funny they should pull that down now.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't really read Daily Kos though.

After this piece I got to wondering if the nasty stuff on the left was really as bad as what I saw here. I normally stick to fairly mainstream outlets.

Guess I should find out.

Why, it's just the retarded wailings of the extremists on either side. I honestly don't peruse Fox, or Heritage, Big Government or Kos or truthout.borg or altnet. They offer very little in the way of rational discussion. Hell, I get better info thru discourse here.:toast

[boutons_deux]

The only thing more dickless that the right-wingers here is the entire Dem party, but there's nothing like the systematic, non-stop, full-bore lies vomited by Fox, Repugs, VRWC, conservative stink tanks.


"I get better info thru discourse here"

thank you, I do my best.

[CosmicCowboy]

"I get better info thru discourse here"

thank you, I do my best.

:lmao

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/3D_TV_static.gif

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure I buy the suggestion that only one side of the aisle bows to political expediency, or that one side has the corner on bona fides.

While it is undeniably true that the GOP has pioneered brazenness as a political style in the 21st century, that does not make the relationship proprietary. Just saying.

Ultimately I suppose it is better to have a deeply flawed take on our own constitution, than none at all. Which is to say, I take a very dim view of those who wish to disturb the present constitutional order, on either side of the aisle.

[LnGrrrR]

Not really. It seems quite comparable to some Daily Kos pieces I've read.

Shocking? Please. As if we had no idea real politik is our political reality.....:rolleyes

Eh, Daily Kos has it's good and bad points. Are there some unhinged people on there? Sure. But there are a lot of stories generated by local community members highlighting items that may not get picked up by national media otherwise.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ultimately I suppose it is better to have a deeply flawed take on our own constitution, than none at all. Which is to say, I take a very dim view of those who wish to disturb the present constitutional order, on either side of the aisle.

Or, let's not fuck it up any worse.

Politics as entertainment holds little appeal, at least to me, but it does explain American governance circa now. Without concerns over which media outlet or personality stated what, this forum would have little traffic.

As for conservatism, there's the popular variety traded on by both major political "sides" and then there is the type alluded to by WH, which is a conservatism not concerned with the total politicization of life.

[Winehole23]

Or, let's not fuck it up any worse.
If we could take only so much for granted, failure in aught else might be tolerable.

[Marcus Bryant]

Virtually no one is comfortable with the status quo. A majority wish to reshape the existing order to something more comfortable for them. That civil society might well be left alone, or even exist outside the touch of those who would perfect it is unfathomable to the mass.

[boutons_deux]

Here's a key player in the VRWC. He already leads the Repug party, and he'll nr taking aim at cutting down competitor BBC (oh, he's a Jew, too :lol )

As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.

"Thus in Britain, a reporter at one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, News of the World, was caught hacking into the voice mail of prominent citizens, including members of the royal family. But Scotland Yard showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the story. Now the editor who ran the paper when the hacking was taking place is chief of communications for the Conservative government — and that government is talking about slashing the budget of the BBC, which competes with the News Corporation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[Winehole23]

MD:

I don't see our barbarous, semi-literate yeomanry reinventing conviviality right away, but maybe it's not too much to hope that "civil society" will not be completely obliterated.

[Marcus Bryant]

How many in this country are actually comfortable around those who disagree with them? On anything? Or who can at least respect that reasonable individuals might develop a different perspective?

[LnGrrrR]

MD:

I don't see our barbarous, semi-literate yeomanry reinventing conviviality right away, but maybe it's not too much to hope that "civil society" will not be completely obliterated.

Eh, the Founding Fathers weren't quite what you or I would call "civil", as fancy as their dress and words were.

[LnGrrrR]

How many in this country are actually comfortable around those who disagree with them? On anything? Or who can at least respect that reasonable individuals might develop a different perspective?

Probably the same amount of dummies that there were at our founding; it's just that due to the internet, we hear more from them nowadays.

[Marcus Bryant]

Eh, the Founding Fathers weren't quite what you or I would call "civil", as fancy as their dress and words were.

Civil society as in ordinary, day to day life, which neither major political movement is content to leave alone.

[Marcus Bryant]

Probably the same amount of dummies that there were at our founding; it's just that due to the internet, we hear more from them nowadays.

Not like this. Americans prefer the echo chamber, and the internet plays no small part in satisfying that. Not to mention that Americans increasingly choose to live in neighborhoods with like-minded people. (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286238895&sr=8-1)

[LnGrrrR]

Not like this. Americans prefer the echo chamber, and the internet plays no small part in satisfying that. Not to mention that Americans increasingly choose to live in neighborhoods with like-minded people. (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286238895&sr=8-1)

Eh, if any clustering is occurring, it is more due to the fact that moving is probably easier now than any other time in history, as one can use the tech available today to find a job in another state, find the best-priced movers/shippers, etc etc.

America has always had clusters of local populations that were somewhat isolated/homogenous.

Of course, I'm probably younger than most, so I can only speak from my perspective. But I tend to be dubious when people posit that America today is worse in X aspect than any other previous generation.

[LnGrrrR]

http://politicalmaps.org/red-states-blue-states-purple-nation/

[DarrinS]

Not really. It seems quite comparable to some Daily Kos pieces I've read.

Shocking? Please. As if we had no idea real politik is our political reality.....:rolleyes


Seriously, didn't the Daily Kos dude write this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jK1cALJRL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

Seriously, didn't the Daily Kos dude write this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jK1cALJRL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

I know! Damn those hyperbolic liberals!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0d/Liberal_Fascism_%28cover%29.jpg/200px-Liberal_Fascism_%28cover%29.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, I'm probably younger than most, so I can only speak from my perspective. But I tend to be dubious when people posit that America today is worse in X aspect than any other previous generation.

You do frequent this forum on a regular basis, no?

[Winehole23]

Liberal Fascism/American Taliban

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj286/sourjax/jpg.jpg?1286244945

Monkey see monkey do.

[Winehole23]

Of course, I'm probably younger than most, so I can only speak from my perspective. But I tend to be dubious when people posit that America today is worse in X aspect than any other previous generation.If declinism is a perpetual complaint, perhaps it is a perpetual reality. Perhaps things have always been getting worse; perhaps all generations are objectively correct in this impression.

[LnGrrrR]

If declinism is a perpetual complaint, perhaps it is a perpetual reality. Perhaps things have always been getting worse; perhaps all generations are objectively correct in this impression.

Except that the facts seem to dismiss that. For one thing, I don't know how one could objectively determine that people are inherently more or less liable to an echo chamber effect; I would think it impossible to control for things like advancements in technology.

Secondly, there's the whole, "When I was a kid" argument, which this seems to boil down to, whereby every generation thinks the new generation is malformed in some way or another. And yet, if you were to compare today's society to that of even, say, the 50's, I'm sure on a case-by-case basis today's society would be shown to be GREATLY more tolerant of others in many areas. (Interracial marriage would be an example of this.)

Third, even if people WERE more likely to want to listen to an echo chamber, what could be done to prevent that? Is it even shown to necessarily be less desirous? People are using liberty to choose to live where they wish; if the nation determines that echo chambers are less desirable than heterogenous communities, one would think communities would then shift to recognize the new standard.

[LnGrrrR]

You do frequent this forum on a regular basis, no?

Cmon Marcus, as a cynic, I'm surprised that you think America was much better/open-minded back in the day than it is now. :)

I think that, if prior generations had access to the technology available today, you'd find that previous generations were as close-minded, if not more.

[Winehole23]

I object to the idea that America is getting any less close-minded due merely to civil rights enforcement. If anything, the reverse is true.

[LnGrrrR]

I object to the idea that America is getting any less close-minded due merely to civil rights enforcement. If anything, the reverse is true.

Well of course you object, you're old. :lol :toast

Care to explain how more close-minded people are nowadays? I'd say that while there may be more VOCAL people engaging in race-baiting, it's only noticeable because the majority of society does not. Tolerance for other races and lifestyles is more likely to be higher now than in previous times.

And of course, even if people ARE more close-minded now than before, the laws don't reflect that, which is a big plus.

You know I'm not going to let you off with such a broad statement like that WH. :)

[Winehole23]

Cmon Marcus, as a cynic, I'm surprised that you think America was much better/open-minded back in the day than it is now. Maybe MB thinks there's something worth hanging on to from the weird, old republic. Is that so naive?

[Marcus Bryant]

Cmon Marcus, as a cynic, I'm surprised that you think America was much better/open-minded back in the day than it is now. :)

I think that, if prior generations had access to the technology available today, you'd find that previous generations were as close-minded, if not more.

Prior generations were more likely to be able to tolerate opposing viewpoints, understand their own, and articulate their own. Any measure of American literacy and the performance of schools in this country bears the latter two out. And, of course, the latter two helped promote the former, as well as the fact that this country was not sorted into homogeneous enclaves as it is today.

[Winehole23]

Care to explain how more close-minded people are nowadays?I meant about race, and that's as someone who's lived in San Antonio and Austin his whole life.

It's not much different than when I was a child. People are less overt about it, more coded. But not very much less.

[Winehole23]

My working hypothesis for this tangent: everybody's a damn racist.

[Marcus Bryant]

My working hypothesis for this tangent: everybody's a damn racist.

Plausible, certainly. Naturally this is another social affliction which must be be crusaded against and cured.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe MB thinks there's something worth hanging on to from the weird, old republic. Is that so naive?

The myth of progress is ingrained in the American psyche, as much so as the one for American exceptionalism. As the clock moves forward, surely we advance towards something better? There can be no answer other than in the affirmative, for to not accept this is to deny the American state religion.

Repent, ye sinners, and accept American greatness.

[Winehole23]

Plausible, certainly. Naturally this is another social affliction which must be be crusaded against and cured.It will never be cured; the treatment is but a second ordeal, beginning usually with social and institutional ostracism. In Rick Sanchez's case, with his firing.

[Winehole23]

The myth of progress is ingrained in the American psyche, as much so as the one for American exceptionalism. As the clock moves forward, surely we advance towards something better? So sure is our attainment in progress that those who merely question its soundness are singled out for weird old uncle jokes or ribbed for wearing rose tinted shades.

(adjusts hearing aid)


There can be no answer other than in the affirmative...None whatsoever.

And may the (college football team) win 10 games. Amen.

[Winehole23]

(drinks Black Butte Porter)

[Winehole23]

(spits out a fly)

[Wild Cobra]

(drinks Black Butte Porter)
You should add a pic:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/BlackButtepoerter.jpg

I have a few 22 oz bottles of this, awaiting to be opened some day:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/BlackButteReserveXXI.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, didn't the Daily Kos dude write this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jK1cALJRL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Indeed.

Although the idea is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it was completely off-base.

Would you care for me to cite a few examples of beliefs that both the Taliban and many hard core Christian fundamentalists share?

[RandomGuy]

I meant about race, and that's as someone who's lived in San Antonio and Austin his whole life.

It's not much different than when I was a child. People are less overt about it, more coded. But not very much less.

I would agree.

[DarrinS]

I object to the idea that America is getting any less close-minded due merely to civil rights enforcement. If anything, the reverse is true.


I don't think its about being close-minded. Problem is, in our efforts to be egalitarian, we water down our educational system and lower the bar so that everyone can "succeed" and no one gets their feewings hurt. We are all CREATED equal, but what people do with that potential is entirely up to the individual.

We also live in a time when people feel a sense of entitlement. We have live in a time where "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" would be considered a very conservative ideal.

[DarrinS]

Indeed.

Although the idea is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it was completely off-base.



Only a bit of a stretch, huh?



Would you care for me to cite a few examples of beliefs that both the Taliban and many hard core Christian fundamentalists share?

No, because it's asinine.

[RandomGuy]

You should add a pic:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/BlackButtepoerter.jpg

I have a few 22 oz bottles of this, awaiting to be opened some day:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/BlackButteReserveXXI.jpg

Man, I can't look at the name of the brewery without going into linguistic shock.

Deschutes

looks like a corruption of:

Deutsches (the German word for "german" in the possessive/descriptive form)

Could also be De Schutes, possibly french or dutch. Erk. Brain. hurt.

[RandomGuy]

Only a bit of a stretch, huh?



No, because it's asinine.

You wouldn't care for me to quote a few of the commonly held beliefs between Christian fundamentalists and the taliban?

It isn't as much of a stretch as you might think.

Both want to essentially codify religious beliefs into a government form.

Both oppose and/or promote versions of creationism over actual science like evolution, and any other scientific topic that might contradict religious beliefs, such as the universe only being a few thousand years old.

Both tend to see women's place as "in the home", and don't see much need to educate females.

Tell me that I am wrong about any of the above, and I will withdraw the analogy.

Ok, that isn't quite true, I would simply provide quotes and evidence to support the above statements, then ask you if the beliefs were parallel and vainly wait for your response, knowing you would never admit that you were wrong, or some on the right might be just that nutty.

[Wild Cobra]

Man, I can't look at the name of the brewery without going into linguistic shock.

Deschutes

looks like a corruption of:

Deutsches (the German word for "german" in the possessive/descriptive form)

Could also be De Schutes, possibly french or dutch. Erk. Brain. hurt.
Well, since I grew up just 60 miles or so north of the brewery, I do know a little. The brewery, located in Bend, OR is named after the river. Their beers, like Black Butte often use names of local features or significance. I quickly found this wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschutes_River_%28Oregon%29) for you:


Prior to 80,000 years ago, the river ran along the east side of Pilot Butte and a lava flow from Lava Top Butte filled in this ancient channel. Previously, the Basalt of the Bend lava flow, associated with the Lava River Cave, had diverted the river westward to its present day location.
The Deschutes River watershed

The river was named Riviere des Chutes or Riviere aux Chutes, French for River of the Falls, during the period of fur trading. The waterfall it referred to was the Celilo Falls on the Columbia River, near where the Deschutes flowed into it. (These falls no longer exist, having been inundated by the lake behind The Dalles Dam).

Lewis and Clark encountered the river on October 22, 1805, and referred to it by the Native American name Towarnehiooks; on their return journey they gave it the new name Clarks River. Variant names include Clarks River, River of the Falls, Riviere des Chutes, Chutes River, and Falls River.

During the middle 19th century, the river was a major obstacle for immigrants on the Oregon Trail. The major crossing point on the river was near its mouth in present-day Deschutes River State Recreation Area. Many immigrants camped on the bluff on the west side of the river after making the crossing. The remains of the trail leading up to the top of the bluff are still visible.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Usgs_deschutes_watershed.png

[RandomGuy]

Well, since I grew up just 60 miles or so north of the brewery, I do know a little. The brewery, located in Bend, OR is named after the river. Their beers, like Black Butte often use names of local features or significance. I quickly found this wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschutes_River_%28Oregon%29)

So french it is. Nifty. A lot of place names in the old Louisana purchase seem to owe their origins to the French explorers who first mapped the areas.

The Laramie basin (La Ramie) and Cache la Pudre (named for a lost cache of gunpowder) areas have similar origins.

[balli]

We have live in a time where "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" would be considered a very conservative ideal.
Okay Mr our nation is broke from two unfinanced wars and obscene tax cuts for millionaires, but Ima scream socialism and tie a bunch of teabags to my hat if someone even thinks about tacking 3.6% onto the capital gains rate.

GMAFB. The right would just assume see this country dissolve, as RG pointed out, into a theocratic loony bin.

[TeyshaBlue]

Okay Mr our nation is broke from two unfinanced wars and obscene tax cuts for millionaires, but Ima scream socialism and tie a bunch of teabags to my hat if someone even thinks about tacking 3.6% onto the capital gains rate.

GMAFB. The right would just assume see this country dissolve, as RG pointed out, into a theocratic loony bin.

The "right" want's no such thing.

The social retard extremists among them, do however.

[RandomGuy]

The "right" want's no such thing.

The social retard extremists among them, do however.

I have to wonder.

It is the tendency of revolutions to "eat their children" in that, once some major revolution has taken place, power tends to be consolidated in more and more extremist hands.

The French revolution, the American revolution, and many others show this.

Once the revolutionairies gain power, they then force ideological litmus tests on people, forcing them to adopt more and more "pure" ideologies. Those that fail to pass this tests have Bad Things happen to them. In France it was the guillotine, and in the US is was hanging.

Since the Republican "revolution" on the part of Gingrich et al, I think we have arguably seen a rough parallel.

Obviously no one is being killed, but is there any doubt that there is some real ideological purity tests being imposed on Republicans in general?

I have only to point to the sad political manuevering of John McCain's effort to retain his seat to support this thesis, and can readily find several other cases.

Just to be clear, I don't think everybody on the right is a slobbering extremist, but it sure seems to me like power is being concentrated in ever more rightward leaning individuals.

[TeyshaBlue]

I have to wonder.

It is the tendency of revolutions to "eat their children" in that, once some major revolution has taken place, power tends to be consolidated in more and more extremist hands.

The French revolution, the American revolution, and many others show this.

Once the revolutionairies gain power, they then force ideological litmus tests on people, forcing them to adopt more and more "pure" ideologies. Those that fail to pass this tests have Bad Things happen to them. In France it was the guillotine, and in the US is was hanging.

Since the Republican "revolution" on the part of Gingrich et al, I think we have arguably seen a rough parallel.

Obviously no one is being killed, but is there any doubt that there is some real ideological purity tests being imposed on Republicans in general?

I have only to point to the sad political manuevering of John McCain's effort to retain his seat to support this thesis, and can readily find several other cases.

Just to be clear, I don't think everybody on the right is a slobbering extremist, but it sure seems to me like power is being concentrated in ever more rightward leaning individuals.

Oh, I think it started much earlier than the Gingrich frame, although it's undeniable he was able to wield the movement effectively. I think that this surge of the Uber Right is the fruition and arguably intended consequences of crafting a narrowly defined, power-demographic...the Moral Majority. When Falwell eschewed the traditional Baptist separation of religion and politics, he kicked off or tapped into an unrequited, almost collective, angst....angst ignited decades earlier with the emergence of the counter-culture. That this force continues, apparently unabated after the dissolution of the MM in the late 80's, shows the depth of this approach towards politics and a powerful meme to be exploited at will. Hell, it's eerily similar to the Temperance Movement which was in no way limited to America only.

[TeyshaBlue]

Summary: There is no such thing as "The New Conservative". They've been around awhile.

[doobs]

I don't think its about being close-minded. Problem is, in our efforts to be egalitarian, we water down our educational system and lower the bar so that everyone can "succeed" and no one gets their feewings hurt. We are all CREATED equal, but what people do with that potential is entirely up to the individual.

We also live in a time when people feel a sense of entitlement. We have live in a time where "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" would be considered a very conservative ideal.

Brings to mind a great quote by Milton Friedman.

"Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary."

[LnGrrrR]

The myth of progress is ingrained in the American psyche, as much so as the one for American exceptionalism. As the clock moves forward, surely we advance towards something better? There can be no answer other than in the affirmative, for to not accept this is to deny the American state religion.

Repent, ye sinners, and accept American greatness.

If the idea of American progress is farcical, surely the opposite (ie. perpetual decline) should be held just as farcical, no?

[LnGrrrR]

I meant about race, and that's as someone who's lived in San Antonio and Austin his whole life.

It's not much different than when I was a child. People are less overt about it, more coded. But not very much less.

Maybe at your age WH23, but there have been numerous studies/polls etc etc that show that younger people are, on average, less racist and more tolerant of other peoples. If you want, I can provide some proof to back it up.

[LnGrrrR]

So sure is our attainment in progress that those who merely question its soundness are singled out for weird old uncle jokes or ribbed for wearing rose tinted shades.

(adjusts hearing aid)


I'm willing to hear a cogent argument that our society is worse off now than in past generations; I'd even agree in some areas (fiscal responsibility, literacy, moral equivalency). But I think if there's any area we've improved, it's social tolerance towards others of a different race/gender/sexual preference.

[Winehole23]

I'm willing to hear a cogent argument that our society is worse off now than in past generations; I'd even agree in some areas (fiscal responsibility, literacy, moral equivalency). But I think if there's any area we've improved, it's social tolerance towards others of a different race/gender/sexual preference. Maybe, maybe not. Improvement as reflected by self-reported attitudes in polling data may not line up with the reality, and the judgment that we're worse off might be more aesthetic than socially measurable. Qualities can be elusive.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe, maybe not. Improvement as reflected by self-reported attitudes in polling data may not line up with the reality, and the judgment that we're worse off might be more aesthetic than socially measurable. Qualities can be elusive.

I would argue that polling data is at the very least a metric. You may claim that reality is worse, but without some form of evidence or logical argument to back up your claim, it is no more different to me than DarrinS claiming that Muslims are would-be terrorists; a dubious claim with no evidence to signify its veracity.

Another metric in my favor is the obviously real-world effect of laws that protect against discrimination, which can't be hand-waved away. If said racists are equal in amount today as the past (a hypothetical at this stage of the game), putting that equality into the books of law is still a large step up.

[Winehole23]

I would argue that polling data is at the very least a metric. You may claim that reality is worse, but without some form of evidence or logical argument to back up your claim, it is no more different to me than DarrinS claiming that Muslims are would-be terrorists; a dubious claim with no evidence to signify its veracity.Get off my lawn.


Another metric in my favor is the obviously real-world effect of laws that protect against discrimination, which can't be hand-waved away. If said racists are equal in amount today as the past (a hypothetical at this stage of the game), putting that equality into the books of law is still a large step up.Don't break your wrist patting the status quo on the back.

[LnGrrrR]

Get off my lawn.

But I need my frisbee back! :lol


Don't break your wrist patting the status quo on the back.

Should I think negative of laws that recognize tolerance?

After all, it's not like I said we don't have progress still to be made, or that we are better in all areas.

You and Marcus are free to play the "Everything is worse" card, but you can't expect me not to call you on it. :)

[Winehole23]

You and Marcus are free to play the "Everything is worse" card, but you can't expect me not to call you on it. :)You took my tongue-in-cheek comment about declinism at face value and overread MB. I call you on that.

[LnGrrrR]

You took my tongue-in-cheek comment about declinism at face value and overread MB. I call you on that.

If I overread, mea culpa. MB often plays the part of concerned grump here, and it's not like you put on the persona of a spring chicken either. :) Can't blame me for picking on the old folks now, can you?

[Winehole23]

No, I can't really blame you for holding up broad caricatures for ridicule instead of paying attention to what people actually say. What else are message boards for?

[TeyshaBlue]

No, I can't really blame you for holding up broad caricatures for ridicule instead of paying attention to what people actually say. What else are message boards for?

I'd just like to add, LnGrrr....shut yer piehole!:ihit


:lol

[Winehole23]

(btw, I'm 43, not 143.) :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

(btw, I'm 43, not 143.) :lol



43? You're a pup! :depressed

[Wild Cobra]

(btw, I'm 43, not 143.) :lol
maybe you'd like this money?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Confederate_currency_%24100_John_Calhoun.jpg

[Winehole23]

Not to rub it in, but it's still pretty sweet. Physical creakiness is just beginning to set in.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not to rub it in, but it's still pretty sweet. Physical creakiness is just beginning to set in.

I'll be cheering you on.:rollin

[Winehole23]

:rollin

[Marcus Bryant]

If the idea of American progress is farcical, surely the opposite (ie. perpetual decline) should be held just as farcical, no?

If that was actually the view at hand.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm willing to hear a cogent argument that our society is worse off now than in past generations; I'd even agree in some areas (fiscal responsibility, literacy, moral equivalency). But I think if there's any area we've improved, it's social tolerance towards others of a different race/gender/sexual preference.

So Americans have become tolerant morons. Grand.

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh, and I was killing fascists when you punks were in diapers.

[Winehole23]

If that was actually the view at hand.It was out there, if facetiously. Maybe I should have blued it. I thought my sententious manner of construction already did that for me, but LNGR tripped over it.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I can't really blame you for holding up broad caricatures for ridicule instead of paying attention to what people actually say. What else are message boards for?

When people present broad statements, I ridicule them. Perhaps you'd like to point out to me where you and Marcus made an actual argument?

Earlier, you said your comment about declinism was tongue-in-cheek, and yet now you seem serious. Which of the two is it? If you put tongue-in-cheek comments out there, you can't blame me for lambasting them.

If anything, I'd say you're the one who's mischaracterizing what I've said. Feel free to point out where I haven't paid attention to the argument. I believe I have; it's just that there's so little to back up the argument, I'm forced to resort to ridicule.

[Marcus Bryant]

Given that 'hey, the other side is full of a bunch of nutters' is deemed an acceptable argument, I'm not sure the standards here require much more.

[LnGrrrR]

If that was actually the view at hand.

Feel free to better define your view; I've no wish to argue a point you're not trying to make. Your argument seemed to come from this statement:


Not like this. Americans prefer the echo chamber, and the internet plays no small part in satisfying that. Not to mention that Americans increasingly choose to live in neighborhoods with like-minded people. (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286238895&sr=8-1)

I've given my reasons why I think Americans aren't necessarily dumber than before, or more close-minded, etc etc. I believe new technology has just made moving to places with like-minded people easier (easier to meet with prospective employers before you move, easier to find an area that suits your tastes).

I also posted some pictures that show that, while communities may be very red or very blue, the states themselves show alot of purple. (Urban districts tend to vote liberal, of course, while rural areas tend to vote conservative.)

I haven't seen a rebuttal yet.

[Winehole23]

@LNGR:

Fair enough. I don't blame you for lambasting anything. By all means, feel free.

IMO there was no substantive argument to start with, just a few stray comments.

Nonetheless, I found your attempt to tease one out clumsy and annoying. That's all, really.

[LnGrrrR]

So Americans have become tolerant morons. Grand.

Eh, it depends on what metrics you're using to gauge intelligence. Is there a baseline we're going off of? Or comparison to other countries?

[LnGrrrR]

Nonetheless, I found your attempt to tease one out clumsy and annoying. That's all, really.

Really? You don't think a comment such as


The myth of progress is ingrained in the American psyche, as much so as the one for American exceptionalism. As the clock moves forward, surely we advance towards something better? There can be no answer other than in the affirmative, for to not accept this is to deny the American state religion.

Repent, ye sinners, and accept American greatness.

is argumentative? You, after all, seemed to agree with the premise he laid out.


So sure is our attainment in progress that those who merely question its soundness are singled out for weird old uncle jokes or ribbed for wearing rose tinted shades.


You implied that those who didn't feel the way you and MB did were only doing so based off ad hominem arguments and jingoistic patriotism. And you can't see why I challenged that view?

If anything was clumsy and annoying, I'd say it's this bit of hand-wringing...



I don't see our barbarous, semi-literate yeomanry reinventing conviviality right away, but maybe it's not too much to hope that "civil society" will not be completely obliterated.

But to each their own. :toast

[Marcus Bryant]

By standards of literacy and academic performance, Americans are certainly worse off than they were four or five decades ago. This country has coasted and looted itself when necessary to feed the false god of material progress. Too much emphasis is given in the public square to this and not enough to the fact that most Americans today are tolerant morons who eschew reading and real understanding and instead measure the quality of their lives by how much shit they can purchase on credit.

That some areas of the country may be ideologically heterogeneous to some degree is not a sufficient counterpoint.

[LnGrrrR]

Given that 'hey, the other side is full of a bunch of nutters' is deemed an acceptable argument, I'm not sure the standards here require much more.

If you feel like arguing on the level of DarrinS, then sure, that's all you need. I assume higher standards for people who use their brains.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you feel like arguing on the level of DarrinS, then sure, that's all you need. I assume higher standards for people who use their brains.

That argument is worthy of mental exertion? Maybe Darrin is on to something after all.

[LnGrrrR]

By standards of literacy and academic performance, Americans are certainly worse off than they were four or five decades ago. This country has coasted and looted itself when necessary to feed the false god of material progress. Too much emphasis is given in the public square to this and not enough to the fact that most Americans today are tolerant morons who eschew reading and real understanding and instead measure the quality of their lives by how much shit they can purchase on credit.

That some areas of the country may be ideologically heterogeneous to some degree is not a sufficient counterpoint.

Fair enough. I agreed earlier that literacy rates suck, and I've heard numerous peers say that they "hate reading", which astounds me. I don't think that people of today are necessarily any dumber/lazier etc etc intrinsically, just that changing times may lead to different values/abilities/etc.

Heck, the dumbing down of America could very well coincide with the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. They've done numerous studies, and no single factor is a better indicator of educational success than wealth.

[LnGrrrR]

That argument is worthy of mental exertion? Maybe Darrin is on to something after all.

The argument that America is getting worse in toto isn't worthy of mental exertion, I agree.

[Marcus Bryant]

Heck, the dumbing down of America could very well coincide with the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. They've done numerous studies, and no single factor is a better indicator of educational success than wealth.

They've also done studies and no single issue is more important to this country than the fact that it is full of tolerant morons.

[LnGrrrR]

They've also done studies and no single issue is more important to this country than the fact that it is full of tolerant morons.

Do you think there's anything that could be done to fix that? Or do you think it's hopeless by this point?

(Personally, having to choose between intolerant geniuses and tolerant morons isn't very appealing)

[Marcus Bryant]

Is video gone or here to stay?

[LnGrrrR]

Is video gone or here to stay?

I'd say that video alone doesn't necessarily make us dumber... but it sure does take a lot less work to watch than to read. (One would think that faster comprehension of material would make one more effectively able to accomplish tasks. Ah well.)

I'm not quite so doom-and-gloom, but I can see your point.

[LnGrrrR]

If anything, I'm appalled by the general lack of curiosity of the younger crowd... unless it's something about Lindsay Lohan. They don't seem to mind being dumb, in many cases. Pretty frightening.

[Winehole23]

Really? You don't think a comment such as
...is argumentative? You, after all, seemed to agree with the premise he laid out.That so-called progress may not be as solid as it is generally assumed to be?

Yes. That is certainly argumentative.

I stand by that argument 100%.

You implied that those who didn't feel the way you and MB did were only doing so based off ad hominem arguments and jingoistic patriotism. And you can't see why I challenged that view?Not sure who/what you're referring to, unless it be your own snarky comments I snarked on.


If anything was clumsy and annoying, I'd say it's this bit of hand-wringing...I can see how it sounds like that. It didn't feel like hand wringing when I said it. It felt more like I was laying my clothes out for work.

There it is: the monkey suit.

Looking back, I scan my comment as an openly hopeful sentiment: irrational/unrationalizable humanity and its lifeways might not be totally obliterated in the global gangbang of everyday life.

[Winehole23]

The argument that America is getting worse in toto isn't worthy of mental exertion, I agree.In toto? No one said soto.

[Winehole23]

Feel free to point out where I haven't paid attention to the argument. I believe I have; it's just that there's so little to back up the argument, I'm forced to resort to ridicule.Been there many times. I may get back there sometime.:rollin

[Winehole23]

I don't think its about being close-minded. Problem is, in our efforts to be egalitarian, we water down our educational system and lower the bar so that everyone can "succeed" and no one gets their feewings hurt. We are all CREATED equal, but what people do with that potential is entirely up to the individual.If it's entirely up to the individual, sucky, levelling-down educational institutions are really beside the point, aren't they?

The excellent, excel. Everybody else grinds.


We also live in a time when people feel a sense of entitlement. We have live in a time where "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" would be considered a very conservative ideal.I'm a little chary (http://dictionary.die.net/chary) of the clientelistic overtones of JFK's remark, but whatever.

Yeah. Some people might say that's conservative.

Do you?

[DarrinS]

If anything, I'm appalled by the general lack of curiosity of the younger crowd... unless it's something about Lindsay Lohan. They don't seem to mind being dumb, in many cases. Pretty frightening.


Same crowd that pushed Obama over the top. Obama is scheduled to have an MTV town hall meeting soon. LOL.

[DarrinS]

I'm a little chary (http://dictionary.die.net/chary) of the clientelistic overtones of JFK's remark, but whatever.

Yeah. Some people might say that's conservative.

Do you?


I think JFK would be considered a conservative these days. (Teddy rolls in grave)

[LnGrrrR]

It was out there, if facetiously. Maybe I should have blued it. I thought my sententious manner of construction already did that for me, but LNGR tripped over it.

To be fair, you don't limit your esoteric use of language to sarcastic posts alone.

[LnGrrrR]

That so-called progress may not be as solid as it is generally assumed to be?

Yes. That is certainly argumentative.

I stand by that argument 100%.

And I never said that progress was occurring in all areas. Given my posting in this forum, I don't see how anyone could say I actually thought that. Also, I specifically stated what areas I think America has backslid in earlier in this thread.


Not sure who/what you're referring to, unless it be your own snarky comments I snarked on.

But my comments weren't particularly snarky. Perhaps that's the miscommunication. You said:


I don't see our barbarous, semi-literate yeomanry reinventing conviviality right away, but maybe it's not too much to hope that "civil society" will not be completely obliterated.

And I merely pointed out that our society isn't necessary less civil than before. Then MB and I got into a side discussion about the echo chamber effect, which I think is poorly laid out.

On the whole, our argument as I knew it was about civility, and whether society was more or less civil nowadays than yesteryear.


Looking back, I scan my comment as an openly hopeful sentiment: irrational/unrationalizable humanity and its lifeways might not be totally obliterated in the global gangbang of everyday life.

I think that's quite the backhanded version of open hopefulness. Kinda like saying to coworker, "I have hopes that you won't completely fuck this project up."

To me, a comment that hopes our way of life won't be totally obliterated by current society reeks of concern trolling. But again, I'm probably more optimistic than most.

[LnGrrrR]

In toto? No one said soto.

MB scoffed at the idea that America could not always be making progress, seeming to imply that if one claimed progress in an area it was only due to some American mindset, and not to a measurable set of metrics.

[Winehole23]

To be fair, you don't limit your esoteric use of language to sarcastic posts alone.Esoteric? Standards must be slipping.

[LnGrrrR]

Esoteric? Standards must be slipping.

I already agreed that literacy rates were slipping. :lol

You're the wordsmith around here WH, not me. What's a term/word for using more advanced words than the average person would use? Last time I checked, "yeomanry" wasn't in general usage, and neither is "conviviality".

Ostentatious, perhaps? Grandiose? Extravagant?

[Winehole23]

And I never said that progress was occurring in all areas. Given my posting in this forum, I don't see how anyone could say I actually thought that. Also, I specifically stated what areas I think America has backslid in earlier in this thread.Fair enough.

And I merely pointed out that our society isn't necessary less civil than before. Then MB and I got into a side discussion about the echo chamber effect, which I think is poorly laid out. The term "civil society" must have thrown you.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Civil_society

On the whole, our argument as I knew it was about civility, and whether society was more or less civil nowadays than yesteryear. That's where you went wrong.



To me, a comment that hopes our way of life won't be totally obliterated by current society reeks of concern trolling.To me, it is a realistic and appropriately hedged hope. I don't take what we got for granted.

[Winehole23]

I already agreed that literacy rates were slipping. :lol

You're the wordsmith around here WH, not me. What's a term/word for using more advanced words than the average person would use? Last time I checked, "yeomanry" wasn't in general usage, and neither is "conviviality".

Ostentatious, perhaps? Grandiose? Extravagant?MB knew what I meant. So did you.

Would it please you better if I dumbed it down for those not participating in this conversation?

[Winehole23]

I'll gloss a damn word if I think it's too far off the beaten path. Yeoman and convivial hardly strike me as ostentatious, grandiose or extravagant, and even if they are, their exotic glamour is totally pierced by using a dictionary.

[LnGrrrR]

MB knew what I meant. So did you.

Would it please better you if I dumbed it down for those not participating in this conversation?

Eh, I understood the words, not the sarcastic/mocking/over-the-top intent.

[LnGrrrR]

The term "civil society" must have thrown you.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Civil_society
That's where you went wrong.

Perhaps. I thought I understood by your comment that you implied that "civil society" was actually more civil (as evidenced by your use of the term "barbarous" in juxtaposition with it.)

From the definition of "civil society" provided, the term seems to encompass so many different aspects as to be near-useless. It's pretty much "society minus government entities". The definition of society, to me, includes things like churches, professional organizations, and other social clubs.


To me, it is a realistic and appropriately hedged hope. I don't take what we got for granted.

Fair enough. My glasses are slightly more rose-tinted, but we all come from different perspectives. (With a slight note: one can be grateful without expecting something to end)

[MannyIsGod]

Liberal Fascism/American Taliban

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj286/sourjax/jpg.jpg?1286244945

Have you read either book?

[Winehole23]

(private)

[Winehole23]

Have you read either book?I've read the reviews. You don't actually expect me to read book-length treatments by Goldberg and Moulitsas, do you?

(shudders)

[Winehole23]

bFrom the definition of "civil society" provided, the term seems to encompass so many different aspects as to be near-useless.That's a big problem. The definition of the term now includes NGOs, which are pretty much the exact opposite of what MB (I take it) was referring to.


It's pretty much "society minus government entities". The definition of society, to me, includes things like churches, professional organizations, and other social clubs.More or less, that's the standard meaning of the term "civil society."


Fair enough. My glasses are slightly more rose-tinted, but we all come from different perspectives. (With a slight note: one can be grateful without expecting something to end)Sure. One can acknowledge the destructive tendencies of mass culture and still be hopeful.

[Winehole23]

(echoes of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft)

[LnGrrrR]

(echoes of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft)

Esoteric much? :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Gemeinhardt? WTF do flutes have to do with anything?

[Winehole23]

Esoteric much? :lolIt's directly pertinent, you pompous ass. :lol

C'mon, man. The nomenclature at issue comes from sociology.

What, I can't make reference to actual sociology, when we're talking about sociological terms? That makes me an elitist or something? Was that too recondite?

[LnGrrrR]

It's directly pertinent, you pompous ass. :lol

C'mon, man. The nomenclature at issue comes from sociology.

What, I can't make reference to actual sociology, when we're talking about sociological terms? That makes me an elitist or something? Was that too recondite?

To be honest, I'm not familiar with the term. All my schooling on sociological topics is self-taught, through books and the net. But the introduction of new terms is how I tend to learn, so by all means, be an elitist.

Why take offense at being elite, WH23? I assume you worked hard for the knowledge you have, why discount or downplay it? :toast

[LnGrrrR]

Just read the Wiki entry on it... interesting stuff, althought the boundaries don't seem very clear.

For instance, my participation in the military. One could call it Gemeinshcaft, as I deploy to countries, sometimes in spite of the wishes of my family, and there are a set of shared mores. Defending one's country is probably a point in this category as well.

Of course, the Gesellschaft interpretation is obvious, as it is a job and if the terms weren't somewhat advantageous to me, I would get out.

I'm sure most jobs are some of column A, and some of column B.

[MannyIsGod]

I've read the reviews. You don't actually expect me to read book-length treatments by Goldberg and Moulitsas, do you?

(shudders)

I know its trendy to try to be even handed and hate on Markos but he's actually a very smart individual with a ton of good points. I've never heard of the other person so I can't speak for him.

What did the reviews that you read of American Taliban say?

[Winehole23]

What did the reviews that you read of American Taliban say?Reducing conservatism to fundy wingnuttism is a caracature. It might be politically useful as such, but it's still a caracature.

[boutons_deux]

"Reducing conservatism to fundy wingnuttism is "

... accurate since "true" conservatives (list the ones in Congress for us), and I doubt they were ever anything but front-men for the corps and capitalists, have been overwhelmed, overpowered, and silenced by the fringe, radical wingnuts.

[Winehole23]

Why take offense at being elite, WH23? I assume you worked hard for the knowledge you have, why discount or downplay it? :toastI'm sorry, I didn't realize dusting off some off-the-rack German sociology qualified me for an elite upgrade.

It didn't occur to me to boast. Anyone else who was awake in class, skimmed the material or happened to be curious all on his own, could've done as much. Offhand allusions are easy.

[Winehole23]

"Reducing conservatism to fundy wingnuttism is "

... accurateFuck you. It's a fucking cartoon.


since "true" conservatives (list the ones in Congress for us)Who is Ron Paul a front for?


and I doubt they were ever anything but front-men for the corps and capitalists, have been overwhelmed, overpowered, and silenced by the fringe, radical wingnuts.That's your daydream. Just because you don't hear it, don't mean I'm not talking to you.

[boutons_deux]

Ron Paul? that's maybe one, out of 535? And he of course has a HUGE INFLUENCE on Repug Congressional actions and legislation

"That's your daydream"

Seen any Repugs argue publicly with Rush Limbaugh lately?

Seen any Repugs express differences with RL and not then grovel before him in apology?

How many Repugs have failed the winguts' (which includes the NRA gun sicko fetishists) ideological purity test and had the electoral chances increased?

How many, if any, centrist Repugs are there?

[Winehole23]

Ron Paul? that's maybe one, out of 535? And he of course has a HUGE INFLUENCE on Repug Congressional actions and legislationI note you did not disqualify him but merely belittled his stature. Fair enough.

Seen any Repugs argue publicly with Rush Limbaugh lately?

Seen any Repugs express differences with RL and not then grovel before him in apology?I don't listen to Rush. That's your daydream.

How many Repugs have failed the winguts' (which includes the NRA gun sicko fetishists) ideological purity test and had the electoral chances increased?I ain't been keepin score. Have you?

How many, if any, centrist Repugs are there?In the northeast, a dwindling few, and a few more in the midwest. Sorta.









Or were those all rhetorical questions? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Reducing conservatism to fundy wingnuttism is a caracature. It might be politically useful as such, but it's still a caracature.


Too bad thats what the modern conservative movement is. I guess in the absence of reality and in the spirit of being "fair" you could ignore that. I don't expect that pointing out the parallels between the right's agenda and that of the Taliban or jihadists in general is going to please them but their displeasure alone doesn't make it false.

Its funny, because I'm pretty sure you would agree with many of the points he makes.

[MannyIsGod]

Did you really bring up Ron Paul in a discussion about modern conservatives? Ron Paul is far from the marker of a modern day conservative. You know this, so why even bring him up.

The modern day GOP is as described.

[Winehole23]

Too bad thats what the modern conservative movement is.I disagree. It's an element, probably one that has already seen its high tide (under GWB.)

[Winehole23]

Did you really bring up Ron Paul in a discussion about modern conservatives? Ron Paul is far from the marker of a modern day conservative. You know this, so why even bring him up.

The modern day GOP is as described.Ron Paul is a US Congressman today. He is a modern conservative in a very basic sense.

[MannyIsGod]

Ron Paul is a US Congressman today. He is a modern conservative in a very basic sense.

One person out of millions does not make for an accurate representation of a movement no matter how much you like him or want him to be.

I will say this, Markos is an extremely passionate person who is very frustrated with the current situation in this country and that frustration comes through with passion in his writing. That leads to hyperbole and overextension but that doesn't make his underlying message accurate.

[Winehole23]

One person out of millions does not make for an accurate representation of a movement no matter how much you like him or want him to be. I didn't put him forward as representative of his party. I only said he was a conservative not obviously in hock to special interests. b_d asked for an example. I gave him one.

(You're way overreading this.)


That leads to hyperbole and overextension but that doesn't make his underlying message accurate.No, it doesn't.

[MannyIsGod]

errr, inaccurate.

[Winehole23]

It's a correct description as far as it goes.

The danger of fundamentalism is overhyped and fundamentalism does not neatly overlap with self-described "conservative" voters.

[MannyIsGod]

It very much does. Visit "real" America and you'll find a value structure more progressive but assembled along the same lines as the Taliban. Given the choice those people would trample all over the bill of rights.

The best thing about that book was that it was based off polling data. Now, the shit that came from R2000 is probably bunk but its not the only data used. In any event, you'd be hard pressed to back up your claim on the voters.

[TeyshaBlue]

Too bad thats what the modern conservative movement is. I guess in the absence of reality and in the spirit of being "fair" you could ignore that. I don't expect that pointing out the parallels between the right's agenda and that of the Taliban or jihadists in general is going to please them but their displeasure alone doesn't make it false.

Its funny, because I'm pretty sure you would agree with many of the points he makes.

It's a slanted focus. You could draw those parallels with the Baptist church, but that's not Markos' agenda.

btw...I notice it's convenient to conflate social conservatives with fiscal conservatism. Classically, the conservative movement has been concerned with the later. The GOP in no way, represents the conservative mindset except when Markos, or ostensibly, anyone else wants it to. It's a cheap parlor trick that yields cheap laughs but no substance.
So he's passionate and frustrated. Look out your window, Manny.

[boutons_deux]

"parallels with the Baptist church"

There's a Baptist Taleban preacher in the South somewhere who's agitating against Yoga as unChristian. :lol

So if the Repugs don't represent fiscal conservatism (eg, dubya taking the national debt from $5T to $10T without a wimper from the Repugs), who in elected positions represents conservatives?

If the conservatives have no elected representatives, why the fuck does anybody care about such a feckless, politically useless ideology?

[TeyshaBlue]

"parallels with the Baptist church"

There's a Baptist Taleban preacher in the South somewhere who's agitating against Yoga as unChristian. :lol

So if the Repugs don't represent fiscal conservatism (eg, dubya taking the national debt from $5T to $10T without a wimper from the Repugs), who in elected positions represents conservatives?

If the conservatives have no elected representatives, why the fuck does anybody care about such a feckless, politically useless ideology?

The GOP has been co-opted by the neo-con, social conservatives. Fiscal conservatism is nothing more than a balsa wood plank in the GOP platform....much like the Democratic Party has been reduced to nothing more than pandering centrists....a trait both parties possess in spades. In either party you have your outliers, but the bell curve is a bitch.

[MannyIsGod]

It's a slanted focus. You could draw those parallels with the Baptist church, but that's not Markos' agenda.

btw...I notice it's convenient to conflate social conservatives with fiscal conservatism. Classically, the conservative movement has been concerned with the later. The GOP in no way, represents the conservative mindset except when Markos, or ostensibly, anyone else wants it to. It's a cheap parlor trick that yields cheap laughs but no substance.
So he's passionate and frustrated. Look out your window, Manny.

The GOP absolutely represents the conservative mindset as accepted by mainstream America. You're absolutely correct in that its not the "true" conservative that was around in the past (also known as a classic liberal) but it is what it is today.

I'm not denying that Markos has a political agenda and his book is framed in that light. But that doesn't mean what he points out is false.

That is the bottom line.

[MannyIsGod]

Conservative in modern politics refers to the people who identify themselves that way which is the GOP and their constituency. That they focus on social issues which a classic liberal would not focus on does not mean that they are referenced as conservatives in today's world.

[TeyshaBlue]

Conservative in modern politics refers to the people who identify themselves that way which is the GOP and their constituency. That they focus on social issues which a classic liberal would not focus on does not mean that they are referenced as conservatives in today's world.

Exactly, hence my characterization as "Co-Opted".

Watch the Tea Party do exactly the same thing.:depressed

[MannyIsGod]

But Markos isn't writing about classic liberals - he's writing about the GOP. What he writes is just flat out valid. He definitely exaggerates and that undoubtedly makes him less effective in reaching certain audiences but what he writes is at its core very very real. The difference in degree is real (GOP wants to reduce gay rights, for instance, but doesn't want to behead them as the Taliban does) but I think the point to be made is how similar their reasoning can be even if their implementation differs.

And yes, the Tea Party will do the exact same thing because while there may be a small core of conservatives who are actually fiscally conservative and smart enough to understand what classic liberalism is and how it should be implemented the vast majority of people who associate themselves with the tea party movement do not and have different motivations.

What I learned from the Obama election was that people are satisfied with winning and don't really care what comes afterwards. In fact, maybe I should have realized this before but I didn't and I now consider this the most important factor in modern American politics. Its not the actual legislation that is pissing off the Tea Party movement but the fact that they lost in the previous election. On the flipside, progressives for the most part aren't motivated because they just won and even though they should be motivated given the political situation they just don't care. However, if the GOP takes over they will rebound and have much more voter enthusiasm come the next set of elections. It all goes to reinforce how elections are almost a sport in this country.

Its sad because elections are all that seem to matter to the vast majority of the constituency when really it should be all about the governing. Americans just love a scoreboard though.

[boutons_deux]

"people are satisfied with winning and don't really care what comes afterwards."

You Fail your lesson.

People who elected Magic Negro were naively expecting that there would be change. Silly buggers.

I never expected any change except Repugs would no longer be running the show. So I'm disappointed that change has been so small (health care and financial reform aren't trivial, but unavoidably too weakened and co-opted by Business), but not surprised.

What will never change is that The Business of America is Business, and Business owns the government, no matter which party is in power.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize dusting off some off-the-rack German sociology qualified me for an elite upgrade.

Hasn't this whole thread been about the dumbing down of America? :lol

Besides, do you think if you busted out that 'bon mot' at the local pub that a good number would understand the reference?


It didn't occur to me to boast. Anyone else who was awake in class, skimmed the material or happened to be curious all on his own, could've done as much. Offhand allusions are easy.

There's only a limited amount of time we all have WH23. We haven't all taken the same courses you have. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

On the flipside, progressives for the most part aren't motivated because they just won and even though they should be motivated given the political situation they just don't care.

Well, for this (mostly) progressive voter, I'm only voting for those who backed up the civil liberties issues that piss me off. The rest I don't care about.

[Winehole23]

Hasn't this whole thread been about the dumbing down of America? :lolAnd how conservatism made me this way, yes.

Besides, do you think if you busted out that 'bon mot' at the local pub that a good number would understand the reference?I only hoped to extend the conversation. Besides, at my local pub somebody would've had a comeback.

There's only a limited amount of time we all have WH23. We haven't all taken the same courses you have. :toastMost people go to college. My casual contact with sociology was neither unusual nor very deep.

[boutons_deux]

"Most people go to college" what?

Most people go to college

[Winehole23]

In the US, I believe a bare majority does.

[LnGrrrR]

I only hoped to extend the conversation. Besides, at my local pub somebody would've had a comeback.

And you did, and I thanked you. That doesn't make the comment any more common in general usage. :)


Most people go to college.

Hm... I don't know about that. Are you saying take one college course, or get a degree?


My casual contact with sociology was neither unusual nor very deep.

Likely; however, I'm sure the amount of people in the general population who are readily familiar with the term gesellschaft is less than 10%.

[LnGrrrR]

According to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States



In 2005, the proportion of the population having finished high school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school) and the percentage of those having earned Bachelor's degrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor%27s_degree) remained at an all-time high, while the growth in both categories has slowed down over the past two decades. The vast majority of the population, 85.2%, had finished high school and over a quarter, 27.7%, had earned a Bachelor's degree. The percentage of both college and high school graduates continued to increase since 2000. Since 1983 the percentage of people graduating from high school has increased from 85% to 88%. The greatest increases in educational attainment were documented in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In the 1950s and much of the 1960s high school graduates constituted about 50% of those considered adults (25 and above). The young adults aged between 25 and 29, percentage of high school graduates was roughly 50% in 1950 versus 90% today.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#cite_n ote-US_Census_Bureau_report_on_educational_attainment_ in_the_United_States.2C_2003-0)


Given this, I could believe that a slim majority take at least one college course, but not that a majority graduate. I don't know if I would call a slim majority "most", but that's just nit-picking.

[Winehole23]

I said go to college. Anyone can go to college or read.

[LnGrrrR]

I said go to college. Anyone can go to college or read.

Anyone can go to college, sure. (Assuming they have cash, obviously.) And sure, reading's easy. That in no way means they'll read about gesellschaft though. I wouldn't say it's required course work.

No big deal; I wouldn't expect people to understand the CIA triangle, or why proxy servers are useful for a defense-in-depth strategy, or even something like Maslow's Hierarchy. We all have different knowledge and skillsets we bring to the table.

[Winehole23]

Sorry. I'm still a little shell-shocked by Obama bailing out foreclosure fraudsters.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry. I'm still a little shell-shocked by Obama bailing out foreclosure fraudsters.

Hmm?

[Winehole23]

You heard me.

[clambake]

You heard me.

you want him to take down these institutions?

[MannyIsGod]

I read what you posted but I wasn't aware of the context or meaning to be quite honest. Whatever, ramble on.

[Winehole23]

That'd be ok with me.

[Winehole23]

I read what you posted but I wasn't aware of the context or meaning to be quite honest. Whatever, ramble on.You weren't paying attention.

Thanks for playing, asshole.

[clambake]

That'd be ok with me.

maybe the timing has something to do about. you think time is up?

[MannyIsGod]

Thats not very above the fray of you, WH. I probably wasn't paying attention. Or maybe you were just being a dick. Who knows?

[Winehole23]

dunno.

[Winehole23]

Maybe I was.

[MannyIsGod]

This must be what WC feels like. Its not so bad.

[clambake]

one of the kids must have called their parents to complain.

[Wild Cobra]

I said go to college. Anyone can go to college or read.
Well, technically someone could have dropped out after a minute of the first day...

Or...

I never had a single day of college, but I went to college plenty of times in the 70's at friends keggers!

[LnGrrrR]

I never had a single day of college, but I went to college plenty of times in the 70's at friends keggers!

:tu :lol

I didn't do the full-time college thing, but I've been to some great parties.

[Winehole23]

Obama hasn't bailed out the foreclosure mills...yet.

(Lame duck, coming up.)