Reality-Based Chat. Speak! Showing 201-250 of 1,199

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "Didn't one Senator (Coburn) think that Obama's executive action saving some illegal immigrants from deportation would spark violence, Mark? The Republicans seem to be afraid of everything except crazy Americans with guns...."

Perhaps that's because they are crazy Americans with guns... or, what's worse, immense political clout. That's why I was wondering about their actually hoping for some kind of reaction that would furnish them with a pretext to press for some form of insane military action -- or, in any case, certainly to criticize Obama's handling of matters, no matter what he does.

And I think you're right: even if we were all homogeneously mixed so as to be racially nearly indistinguishable, people would still find minute gradations of hue to serve as the basis for discrimination, and they'd still "fight over class, religion and gender."

[Mark]

Lisa wrote: "Mary, It seems as though the polarization has gotten worse in the last 20 years since the days with Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America." Since it wasn't always this bad, I hope that the s..."

Lisa, I'm afraid the change has been largely monotonic in one direction. Political space is not, as they'd call it in physics, "anisotropic" (meaning that direction doesn't matter as to the effect of the application of forces). Unfortunately, there always seems to be immense resistance to forward movement, but conversely, virtually zero resistance to retrogression -- in fact, a tendency actually to accelerate when moving in a backward direction. But we did replace Bush with Obama, so it's not infeasible in principle to move forward (or to inhibit the backward acceleration)... just very, very hard.

[Mary]

I agree, Mark, that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in pushing polarization. I suspect the change came when the Southern Democrats (who filibustered the Civil Rights bill among other sins) became Republicans in the late sixties. But I agree with you, Lisa, that the polarization seems to have increased recently, starting with the Clinton administration when the Republicans tried to impeach him; the Republicans in California recalled Gray Davis a few years later. The problem might be caused by the rise of conservative media. The media was never as liberal as conservative politicians want us to believe, but Fox News really started to become powerful in the late nineties and the beginning of this century. And conservative talk radio is so influential that the liberals tried to duplicate its success with their own stations during the early aughts when people like now Senator Al Franken, now television commentator Rachel Maddow, and back-to-acting Janeane Garafolo tried to become the liberal Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. They failed; I guess liberals don't like radio. But we still have our electronic media powerhouses like Moveon and Daily Kos, and they are pushing the liberals to the left as hard as the conservative media have pushed the conservatives to the right, leaving no room for moderates and compromise.

It's interesting that more voters are registering as Independents, suggesting that the American citizens want compromise even if the media and special interests groups don't. We'll see what happens in 2016; maybe my "dark horse" white male candidate O'Malley can bring us back to reality and civility. Even I, who am more combative than the average liberal, find myself thinking longingly of Tip O'Neill and always genial Reagan, although I sometimes wonder if their relationship is being mythologized; I'm sure that they got along better than Obama and McConnell, but were they really such great friends?

[Mark]

For those who may be interested, I've read Beverly's graphic novel, "I and You," and I highly recommend it. My review is here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I'm not going to make it a practice universally to review every book by an active participant in LibPol, but if you have something, I'm amenable to requests. In this case, my prodigious loathing of Ayn Rand was what stimulated my curiosity -- I'd received no request from Beverly.

Full disclosure: I received absolutely nothing (not even an ARC) in exchange for a review, but all my reviews are honest. :-) (I actually obtained a copy independently from Amazon Prime.)

[Beverly]

Mary wrote: "I agree, Mark, that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in pushing polarization. I suspect the change came when the Southern Democrats (who filibustered the Civil Rights bill among other ..."

I wouldn't lament the failure of leftist radio. I think that Right wing radio fans tend to be elderly, retired, or hold jobs that allow them to play the radio at work (drivers, manual labor, general office work, etc.) We lefties tend to be more educated and white collar, with jobs based in information and requiring concentration, so we can't listen to the radio on the job. It's not surprising we don't listen to the radio as much. I really don't think it was a lack of interest or should be construed as indicative of our numbers.

[Mark]

Beverly wrote: "Mary wrote: "I agree, Mark, that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in pushing polarization. I suspect the change came when the Southern Democrats (who filibustered the Civil Rights bill..."

That seems to make sense. though I'm elderly and retired and still never listen to the radio. (I do stream Maddow, Democracy Now! and Ed Schultz on TuneIn, though, so perhaps I still do suffer from Elderly Retired Radio-Listening Person Syndrome (ERRLPS).) I will not try to cure it, provided that I feel no demented impulse to listen to Limbaugh, which would certainly be alarming and indicative of a neurological problem (or rabies).

Actually, I'm a bit under the weather and may not be too active for a few days. All please keep commenting in my absence, and say something nasty about the Republican agenda for me. Everytime you say something nasty about the Republican agenda, an angel gets its wings and someone gets royalties from an old Jimmy Stewart movie... so it's in the spirit of the season.

[Mary]

Feel better, Mark. Here is my get well message: With the notable exception of former war prisoner John McCain, Republicans support torture.

[Mark]

Thanks, Mary! I think I hear a bell. :)

[Shelley]

Now is the time to let your Representative and Senator know if you agree with Elizabeth Warren, as I do, that they should vote no on the pending funding resolution. Hidden in there is a rollback of the new regulations for the financial industry.
Warren is really angry.

Shelley
http://dustbowlstory.wordpress.com

[Lisa]

Of course I agree with Elizabeth Warren. I can count on my Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky to do the right thing. My two Senators will cancel each other out.

And Mark, I hope that you feel better soon. Take care.

[Dawn]

My senator sucks I really dislike her she has been in office forever and I always work for who is running against her but still she sits ***sigh*** I am sure she will vote for it.

[Dawn]

Not sure if this has already been posted but...initially I followed the Ferguson case and I thought jeez how far we have not come. And while I expected the grand jury to let the cop off I was still annoyed that they did. Then came the Eric Garner case and I was floored I mean what the hell you had a video and everything. I am not sure why a special prosecutor would not be used in any case of police I mean it is rather clear is that "there is an inherent conflict of interest in giving local prosecutors so much control over the decision whether to charge police for allegations of bias or excessive use of force — and a compelling need for an independent special prosecutor to handle such cases from start to finish."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion...

Glad to see all the protests though. We need the police and if people are scared to use it or see the police as negative it is the fastest way to destroying the rule of law.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sh...

[Mary]

I agree, Dawn, let's hope that the special prosecutor for killer cops law will be the good that comes from this evil of cops killing unarmed black men. The White Coats for black lives protests, shown on Rachel's show, were really uplifting. I loved their point that the murdering of black men is a national health crisis. Two black men (and no American-born citizens) have died in this country from Ebola, and yet the Fox folks had everyone freaking out over that so-called epidemic that Boogie Man Obama caused. By the way, these protests are driving Sean "I don't see no racism" Hannity crazy. I just viewed a clip of him arguing with Tavis Smiley, who is not exactly my favorite black media person after his jealous attacks on Obama. Hannity is trying to argue that Garner was killed because of government greed (he was selling cigarettes, and the Long Island government folks want to collect taxes off the cigarettes, claims Sean), but Brown was charging Wilson, so his death was justifiable homicide. He quoted only the witnesses who described Brown charging while I saw a video of a man raising his hands minutes, if not seconds, after the shooting. He was clearly indicating that Brown's hands were up.

On the spending bill: I'm happy to see the liberals fighting back against the Republicans' attempt to use the fear of a shutdown to slam through more policies that will help them turn this democracy into a plutocracy.

[Mark]

Just popping in briefly, but...

For those of you who always wondered why so many more men vote Republican:

http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2014/1...

[Mark]

Hi, All!

Thanks for continuing to post in my absence! I'll try to take your comments in sequence, then review recent events.

[Mark]

Shelley wrote: "Now is the time to let your Representative and Senator know if you agree with Elizabeth Warren, as I do, that they should vote no on the pending funding resolution. Hidden in there is a rollback of..."

Well, as was probably inevitable, despite heroic efforts by Warren, Maxine Waters and others, the Senate has followed the suit of the House in swallowing the poison pill, giving a massive Christmas bonus to Wall Street (whose billionaire plutocrats definitely needed it, because some of them quite appallingly own fewer than seven castles in Monaco), removing constraints on insane hedge fund activity (because that worked so well last time), and embracing all sorts of other pernicious provisions. And in the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"

Thanks (albeit belatedly) for your own effort to generate calls to Senators and Representatives, Shelley, though the saner Democrats were probably in a doomed position from the outset (the Dems have always been constrained by the Faustian bargain they made with Wall Street, and of course, Obama is even still pushing Weiss for Treasury). Of course, calling Republican Senators and Reps is the functional equivalent of petitioning the Antichrist to "be a good boy."

This remarkable Op-Ed from the Times, though, pretty much says it all about the prevailing State of the Kakistocracy (which I will decline to dignify with the word "Nation"), and such encouraging efforts as are hitting the streets in an effort by the members of the Lilliputian economic underclass to kick Rabid Godzilla's toes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/opi...

[Mark]

Lisa wrote: "Of course I agree with Elizabeth Warren. I can count on my Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky to do the right thing. My two Senators will cancel each other out.

And Mark, I hope that you feel better so..."

Thanks, Lisa! I am doing a little better, and seizing the occasion to catch up. Honestly, I admire Warren immeasurably, but I don't know what she can possibly do, especially with the incoming 2015 Congress of Bicameral Evil. At this point, though, I'd be happy to sign a referendum appointing her Monarch for Life. :)

[Mark]

Dawn wrote: "My senator sucks I really dislike her she has been in office forever and I always work for who is running against her but still she sits ***sigh*** I am sure she will vote for it."

Hi, Dawn!

I am guessing you live in a Red State (not that that's a prerequisite for having a prodigiously detestable Senator, but it does sort of guarantee it). "Suckitude" is, I think, a prerequisite for candidacy, election-by-cheating-suppression-and-overspending, and holding office in all but the (diminishing) blue regions of the country that haven't been annexed by Gilead.

[Mark]

Dawn wrote: "Not sure if this has already been posted but...initially I followed the Ferguson case and I thought jeez how far we have not come. And while I expected the grand jury to let the cop off I was still..."

Yes, the protests you mention are featured in Bittman's great NYT Op-Ed. We really do need special prosecutors in all of these cases. Large segments of the population are pretty much subject to shooting-with-impunity, and as Bittman puts it, " near-random incarceration."

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "I agree, Dawn, let's hope that the special prosecutor for killer cops law will be the good that comes from this evil of cops killing unarmed black men... By the way, these protests are driving Sean "I don't see no racism" Hannity crazy..."

I would be nice to see Hannity froth at the mouth on national television (not that he doesn't already, verbally, and not that actual evidence of rabies wouldn't appeal to his natural media constituency), but making Hannity crazy would be the functional equivalent of making waste from Fukushima toxic. No extra effort required, and no discernible difference observable, afterwards. :)

[Mary]

My favorite image of Hannity, Mark, was when he was defending a black man for a change, the NFL player who left marks on his 4-year-old child while "disciplining" him. Hannity was arguing in favor of corporal punishment and used a belt to show how his father beat him. It was the best argument against corporal punishment I've ever seen. If you don't want your child to end up like Hannity, don't beat him or her with a belt.

The White House was pushing the Democrats to go along with the Republicans on this bill while Ted Cruz was trying to block it because of immigration, so who knows how bad or good it is.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "My favorite image of Hannity, Mark, was when he was defending a black man for a change, the NFL player who left marks on his 4-year-old child while "disciplining" him. Hannity was arguing in favor..."

If it weren't so appalling, it would be funny to watch Hannity's mental contortions, in which fanatical racist hatred struggles against an urgent need to inflict violent harm on others (especially children, the weak and vulnerable), and the need to support child abuse... wins by a nose.

Actually, this is a characteristic of our plutocracy, which has always rendered their children sociopathic through the infliction of multigenerational child abuse, a practice I think we inherited from the British aristocracy, whose elite "public" schools have always perpetrated atrocious hazing. But conservatives, it has always seemed to me (if you apply Occam's Razor to derive the simplest explanation for their behavior and constellation of attitudes), are largely motivated by Schadenfreude (and the remaining part, motivated by racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of xenophobia). They simply *enjoy* abuse, derive some form of psychic gratification from inflicting harm on others. There are multiple scientific studies (referenced here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biolog...) that show that conservatives tend to have larger amygdalae, and are hence prone to greater violence and aggression (the "fight" response). Possibly part of why they tend to be inveterate bullies (Hannity representing the quintessential example) and why they love war so much. Now, if this is partly the result of abuse inflicted on them as children, as evidence suggests, then I suppose they can't entirely be blamed, though they do inevitably perpetuate the multigenerational cycle, by beating up their own children. Abuse begets abuse. (Naturally, it goes without saying that I am speaking in terms of statistical generalities -- there are unquestionably plenty of philosophically conservative people who are in no way personally abusive -- but both neurological evidence and sociological studies support all of this, and it only makes sense. Hazing and egregious forms of abuse permeate the rituals of the interwoven occult societies to which our economic elite belong -- and are practiced even at the level of many fraternities and sororities, who consider psychopathological behavior a "time-honored tradition.")

[Mark]

Great interview with Elizabeth Warren concerning the precedent set for routine last-minute "grenade-insertions" into all spending bills required to keep the government open (article contains audio link):

http://www.kplu.org/post/sen-warren-w...

[Mary]

Any thoughts about Jeb Bush forming an exploratory committee to "explore" running for President in 2016? My response is kind of like the response of the James Franco character in this new comedy "The Interview." It's "wha...?" I also remember what Jesse Jackson said in 2000, "Stay out of the Bushes."

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "Any thoughts about Jeb Bush forming an exploratory committee to "explore" running for President in 2016? My response is kind of like the response of the James Franco character in this new comedy "..."

He is, after all, next in the line of dynastic succession. Hitler-funding* Prescott would be so proud -- no descendant left behind. I hadn't heard Jackson's quote before, but I love it. Wish we could get away from the Tea Party, as well. We need to be tea-totalers. :-)

* http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004...

[Mark]

Actually, thinking about it -- and unbelievably loath as I am to say it -- if the Apocalypse does come in the form of a 2016 Republican win, then Jeb might be one of the less appalling alternatives. Of course, his ideology is unspeakably hateful and pernicious, but he's not stupid or discernibly wildly insane, and (horribile dictu) that puts him ahead of many of the other Republican prospects.

[Mark]

Mary, on third thought, no matter whom they pick, their candidate is going to have a tail and cloven hooves, so I'm not sure it really matters who prevails over the resultant economic and geopolitical Apocalypse if the Republicans win, but I don't think even Bush (who'd be an incredibly horrible president) is horrible enough for the Tea Party contingent. They really want someone who will chew the scenery, and if elected, make it illegal not to be white. I don't know. Maybe it'll work to the Democrats' advantage if no one can get through the Republican primaries who isn't obviously a raving lunatic (obvious even to moderates; I think they're all raving lunatics).

[Lisa]

The only thing I worry about it is the Republicans choosing someone who would be difficult for the Democrats to defeat. I think that Jeb Bush would be hard to beat and that scares me. Of course he does seem less insane than a lot of them, but I still wouldn't want him to win.

[Mary]

Yes, Jeb is saner than Ted Cruz and smarter than Rand Paul, but frankly I'd prefer bully boy Chris Christie to another Bush. Jeb was the Bush son who should have been President since he has a brain, but because brainless big brother was older, he just decided to take the job. I agree with you, Mark, and the pundits that it will be hard for Jeb to win in the primaries. After all, his wife is Latina, and some of his children are brown as his father pointed out years ago. I just can't believe that another Bush would have the nerve to run so soon after the last one made such a mess that a half-black man was elected to clean it up. Do they think our memories are that short? We'll see.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "Yes, Jeb is saner than Ted Cruz and smarter than Rand Paul, but frankly I'd prefer bully boy Chris Christie to another Bush. Jeb was the Bush son who should have been President since he has a brai..."

Mary, I fully agree with you that Christie is the least horrible of the worst (to wit, prospective Republican presidents in the event of that dystopian outcome). He's smart and pragmatic, and would take the job seriously, though he'd still be advancing an inconceivably odious agenda.

When speculating about the next presidential race, I always feel as though I need to resort to the "minimax" algorithm used in writing computer chess games, which says that you expect your opponent's move will be the most devastating counter to any move you can possibly make, so you make the move to which the horrendous counter will be least awful. My instinctive rooting interest would naturally be in the Republican candidate who'd have the least prospect of winning the actual presidential race, but proceeding on the assumption that the rigged electoral system will deliver the most devastating possible outcome (a Republican victory), then if I reconcile myself to that (as I would in playing chess), then I want the least pernicious Republican to run. But since there's really almost no prospect that Christie (or even Bush -- or anyone not discernibly psychotic) could get past the Tea Party blockade of the Republican primaries, then I have to give up on minimax with respect to the general election, and just go back to rooting for the Republican candidate who's most visibly clownish and demented (which, conveniently, would make that person highly appealing to the Tea Party). I'm not sure who that is, since so many of them qualify: Palin leaps to mind, but I don't think even the Tea Party would be dumb enough... although, you never know, they did run her for VP. Of course, if the most egregiously stupid, deranged and offensive candidate runs, and my supposition that there's been rigging and virtual electoral nullification proves to be correct, then we're in for a president who'll make Caligula look wise and temperate. Fortunately, since my personal rooting can have no effect whatever on the outcome of the Republican primaries (or the election), I do not have to solve the impossible conundrum.

[Mark]

Wait... I could be wrong about our inability to have an effect. As an (albeit small) liberal political group, perhaps we need enthusiastically to endorse the Republican's best chance of winning, and to encourage other liberal groups to do the same. Ads could be run by actual PAC's: "We are leftists wildly in favor of Republican Candidate X." This, of course, would utterly doom Candidate X in the Republican primaries.

Now, to select Candidate X, we have to assume that anyone remotely sane or intelligent (like Christie) will automatically be eliminated by the Tea Party without any outside interference. So we remove all the competent candidates from the pool, since the Tea Party will remove them anyway. Then, of the remaining group, we pick the candidate who has the best chance of winning the general election, and express our unrestrained enthusiasm for that candidate, thereby dooming said person. What do you think? :-)

[Mark]

I don't want to distract attention from the matter of odious Republican candidates and political strategizing in general, so please do contribute further thoughts, but for those of you who may not be following all topics, Jimmy has posted a new thread on abortion, with a post featuring a link to an article in "Mother Jones," the first line of which is this:

"A Missouri Republican is pushing a bill that would allow a man who gets a woman pregnant to stop her from having an abortion. The measure would force a woman who wants an abortion to obtain written permission from the father first—unless she was the victim of "legitimate rape."

This is immitigably and unspeakably appalling on so many levels, it is almost impossible to know where to begin, except that, perhaps, the next Republican to utter the words "legitimate rape" ought to be brought up on a "crimes against humanity" tribunal at The Hague. Leaving that aside, "allow a man to do WHAT???" Whose body are we talking about, here, and sick antebellum delusions aside... um, when was the legislation enacted to reinstitute the status of woman as chattel? It had somehow escaped me that we were living in the second or third millennium, B.C., and that women were property of their men. Perhaps the "Missouri Republican" has found suitable legal references in the OT (or "The Epic of Gilgamesh"), but I, for one, could do without losing four thousand years of civilization.

...which is only the beginning of my reaction (which also includes an inclination to declare all Missouri and other Republicans supporting this measure ipso facto citizens of Ancient Sumeria, with accordingly no right to hold office in The United States or any country that exists in this millennium)... but I'll turn it over to you. Comments?

[Mary]

You're joking, Mark, but you know that Democratic politicians have rigged elections to their advantage in the past through slick advertising. In California, Governor Gray Davis did it in 2002, advertising against moderate Republican Riordan so that the crazier, right-wing Republican would win the primary, and Davis still barely beat that lunatic whose name I've forgotten in the final election. When the recall thing started, I was initially thinking of voting for Riordan, who had been mayor of L.A., because I thought his win would be appropriate karma, but then Mr. Muscles entered the race, Riordan didn't run, and "all hope was lost."

I think Obama is a pretty slick politician by the way. The Cuba move has put the Republicans on the defensive, and Rachel Maddow pointed out that Jeb Bush had recently claimed that he would double down on the embargo, so he might now find himself on the wrong side of history again. The younger Cubans seem to support Obama's move as do some Republicans, like goofy Rand Paul.

[Mark]

You're joking, Mark, but you know that Democratic politicians have rigged elections to their advantage in the past through slick advertising. In California, Governor Gray Davis did it in 2002, advertising against moderate Republican Riordan so that the crazier, right-wing Republican would win the primary, and Davis still barely beat that lunatic whose name I've forgotten in the final election.

I had forgotten about Davis (though I'm obviously less attentive to political events in California than you would have cause to be), but you're right: advertising against the more viable Republican candidate is tantamount to attempting to doom him by causing him to be perceived as beloved of liberals (though somewhat less amusing as a Gedankenexperiment). Truthfully, I'd only half been joking. Republicans have resorted to egregious fraud, voter suppression and outright tampering on a routine basis, so I wouldn't consider it morally reprehensible for Democrats to resort to legal (albeit devious) stratagems in a "Hail Mary" attempt to avert Republigeddon. :-)

When the recall thing started, I was initially thinking of voting for Riordan, who had been mayor of L.A., because I thought his win would be appropriate karma, but then Mr. Muscles entered the race, Riordan didn't run, and "all hope was lost."

Yes, I believe mottoes were posted above his office on the order of, "lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate." Perhaps those words should now be inscribed above all Diebold-tenanted voting booths. :-)

I think Obama is a pretty slick politician by the way.

My God, yes! Can you imagine what this country would be like if he had not been compelled to run the gauntlet of an enraged mob of psychotic Republicans over the past six years, over an active minefield? But this was extraordinarily clever, even for Obama.

The younger Cubans seem to support Obama's move as do some Republicans, like goofy Rand Paul. 

Well, they don't harbor quite the resentment some of their forbears have nurtured for 50-some years, at having been deprived of their property (and sometimes immense wealth) by Castro's attempt (which we sought endlessly to thwart by every means imaginable) to create a livable country for ordinary people. I don't think it was the temporary presence of missiles 90 miles off our shore line that we ever resented so profoundly as the prospect that Americans might notice that someone was trying to provide healthcare and education to the poor.

As for Paul, yes, "goofy" is a good word. Many of his father's views were utterly insane (and some not), but there was an integrity and consistency to his lunacy that his offspring (or epigone) lacks. I think Ron would actually have tried to defund the Pentagon and the social safety net, both, whereas Rand cherry-picks his inherited libertarianism more to conform with the uniformly insane predilections of the Tea Party... but he still commits the occasional, random act of principle (or political pragmatism) whose unintended side effect is support for an intelligent policy.

[Mary]

You're right, Mark. Paul Junior is more pragmatic (politically correct word for "slick") than his father. But because he's not too smart, his 180 degree turns are often obvious and obnoxious. I hate the way he's trying to court blacks now. I jump on his posts about the attacks on unarmed blacks and remind him of what he said on Rachel Maddow's show about the Civil Rights Act. He's going around talking to black organizations now like he didn't have that racist guy whose name I've forgotten working for him a few years ago.

Paul is also petulant and thin-skinned, kind of like both Bushes. But I think he's worse; he was acting as if he was going to quit and return to his original profession when Rachel and some others dogged him for plagiarizing. But the corporate media seems to like him, certainly more than they did his father. In the same week he was on the cover of Time and was featured in The New Yorker.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "You're right, Mark. Paul Junior is more pragmatic (politically correct word for "slick") than his father. But because he's not too smart, his 180 degree turns are often obvious and obnoxious. I ... But the corporate media seems to like him, certainly more than they did his father. In the same week he was on the cover of Time and was featured in The New Yorker."

Bothered me, too, Mary. When the corporate media exhibit an irrational drooling fixation on a manifest idiot (who is, moreover, as you say, petulant, smarmy and obnoxious -- well, actually, I decided to throw in "smarmy," but I didn't think you'd object)... then it's a pretty fair bet that some sort of "fix" is in, and his visibility is being enhanced in the service of some agenda that's been decided on by the power elite -- whether or not that agenda involves actually making him their sock puppet president. (My take, anyway, because... Rand Paul??! Why else??)

(I think the racist staffer you're referring to may have been Jack Hunter -- a nutcase radio host who calls himself the "Southern Avenger.")

[Mark]

Just to keep you all apprised, there are some interesting new posts on the "Abortion" thread. I've explained this in past, but I'm trying to maximize the "notification effect" by focussing activity primarily on this thread and a few others (as they arise). But people who haven't been to new threads won't otherwise be notified that there's anything to see, so I'll sometimes post references on this thread, as well, since I think practically everyone active will receive those notifications. What I am also doing is to "star" new threads with significant activity (for at least a time), so that anyone browsing the main page can find the active threads more readily. (Herewith ends moderator's full disclosure of insidious strategic policy.)
Also, Nancy has introduced herself on that thread ("Introductions"). Welcome, Nancy!

[Mary]

Yeah, Mark, the Southern Avenger. I wonder where he is now. I've become suspicious of Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, because she's gotten the "irrational drooling fixation" treatment more recently. She's been around forever ( she's near the end of her third term), and suddenly there's an article about her in both New Yorker and Vanity Fair. Maybe it's just a let's-focus-on-everyone-except-Obama movement. Let's pretend he's the invisible man, so we will go on and on about the second-and-third-in-line-to-the-British-throne Princes William and George. And we'll look at this apparently boring German woman.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "Yeah, Mark, the Southern Avenger. I wonder where he is now. I've become suspicious of Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, because she's gotten the "irrational drooling fixation" treatment more ..."

I tend to agree about the "look-over-there" media blackout of Obama, Mary, but if I had to guess about Merkel, I'd say that the intended narrative is: look, we've got this "fiscally conservative" German chancellor ("conservative," relative to European standards) who's presiding over a very successful country. (Though no one mentions that it's still less successful than the Scandinavian social democracies. And no one mentions that Germany isn't outsourcing all its industry and deliberately immiserating its workers. And that waiters, e.g., get quasi-livable salaries and not the $2.13/hr + declining tips that haven't changed in America in 22 years. Also, Germans pay essentially nothing for healthcare*.) So even their worst-paid workers are far less abused.

But forget all that: "Merkel, conservative. German economy, good. Therefore, conservatism good." That's the primitive narrative I think they feel impelled to advance, but it only works in the "minds" of their semiliterate pundit class. What they don't realize is that it's a useless narrative to purvey in America -- not because their victimized, ignorant, Hannity-worshiping constituency could ever see through it, but because most of the members of that constituency wouldn't know Merkel from a hole in the ground, and a lot of them have barely heard of Europe. If Hannity told them that Germany was an Islamic terrorist state located in Antarctica, they'd buy it in a minute.

* http://www.theatlantic.com/health/arc...

[Mary]

What's suspicious, though, Mark, is The New Yorker and Vanity Fair aren't supposed to be conservative. I'm not sure about The New Yorker; it's probably like Time and Newsweek and all other corporate media (conservatives in liberal clothing), but Vanity Fair at least recently has been more openly liberal. The editor certainly is openly against conservatives. I'm wondering if they are worried that she won't win a fourth term and think whoever is likely to run against her will be worse for us or something. I'm not sure what's going on, but I know something is going on.

[Mark]

You're right, Mary. Whereas I do think even The New Yorker is, as you say, liberal only ostensibly, for public consumption, and to the extent not constrained by corporate dictates -- and I don't know about Vanity Fair -- I guess my immediate reaction (as usual) was just to presume those two articles must be part of an orchestrated wave of Merkel-promotion which would have been flowing through every head of the hydra (hence my reference to Hannity). But if the intent isn't just the usual one of extolling conservative "virtues," then you're doubtless right, and there is some other agenda involving Merkel, and maybe it's specifically and only literate (and mostly affluent) Americans they want to rally to her support. From my perspective, it would certainly be a good thing if she were replaced by a more liberal chancellor, but I can see that it wouldn't sit well with the corporatocracy -- and perhaps they're even worried about some potential rogue challenger to the right of Merkel (who wouldn't necessarily be a globalist). But something stinks to the south of Denmark, and also in New York editorial offices.

[Mark]

Xdyj wrote: "Mark wrote: "You're right, Mary. Whereas I do think even The New Yorker is, as you say, liberal only ostensibly, for public consumption, and to the extent not constrained by corporate dictates -- ..."

Many thanks for the elucidation, Xdyj, and yes, I agree emphatically that most American Republicans would consider the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union) socialist. Actually, I think most contemporary American Republicans would consider all of the following socialist (or communistic):

The Democratic Party
The Republican Party (prior to its hijacking by the TP contingent)
George W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
William F. Buckley
Barry Goldwater
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Benito Mussolini
Genghis Khan
Vlad the Impaler
Caligula

:-) :-)

ETA:

This was in response to an earlier post by Xdyj, who has since deleted said post (I'm not sure why), though I do think it helped to clarify the status of Merkel's CDU Party... so, Xdyj, if you're out there, I invite you to repost your comment.

[Mary]

You forgot the KKK and the John Birch Society, Mark. I told one of the conservative googlers who was using Communist as a slur that the Cold War is over, and that was before Obama talked to Castro. I think the majority of Americans today would prefer being called socialist to being called a Tea Partier. Certainly, the sane ones would.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "You forgot the KKK and the John Birch Society, Mark. I told one of the conservative googlers who was using Communist as a slur that the Cold War is over, and that was before Obama talked to Castro. I think the majority of Americans today would prefer being called socialist to being called a Tea Partier. Certainly, the sane ones would. ..."

I earnestly hope that you're right. It would be nice to think that most Americans would prefer being called empathic to being called psychopathic, but I'm more than slightly afraid that Americans who are even clinically sane in their political views represent a diminishing minority crying, "At length, sir, have you no shame," at hordes of the inherently shameless (or, perhaps to exculpate them slightly, the hopelessly ignorant and brainwashed, who've been rendered thus by the educational agenda and media control of plutocratic monsters).

The country has moved (or been pushed) so far to the right, that even though the list I've made up ought to be funny, American Republicans really do embrace positions ideologically to the right of nearly all the people on it. Perhaps even all. One could question my inclusion of Vlad, but I actually think that the concept of putting people's heads on sticks might appeal to a great swath of members of the Tea Party. Certainly, they enthusiastically endorse the drinking by plutocrats of other American's economic blood, so the vampiric reference seems at least metaphorically appropriate.

Honestly, Mary, I don't know how we ever move out of this moral free-fall, in which the situation is so bad that one can't even resort to parody that proves not to be essentially true. :(

[Mark]

Just a heads-up: active discussion of the predictable forthcoming banking debacle in the wake of the trashing of Dodd-Frank (sneaked into the budget reauthorization by the Republicans, and silently acceded to by practically everyone but Elizabeth Warren) on the topic thread, "A Fighting Chance," in the book club folder.

[Mark]

This really needed to be said about a month ago, apropos of the spate of shootings of unarmed black people, but I only just stumbled on it. Still, it's exquisitely well-stated:

http://samkriss.wordpress.com/2014/12...

[Mary]

I've been on this topic on other social media sites for weeks, Mark. I could write a book on the topic. I noticed the difference between how blacks and whites viewed cops during the OJ trial. I knew Mark Fuhrman had planted the glove. I just thought it was because of his racism at first and realized later it was because he was fame-hungry and wanted to be part of what he knew would be a big case. But my white colleagues were saying that the cops didn't know OJ was in town; to which I replied, "OJ is a big black man who was driving a Bentley and a white Bronco in Brentwood; he drove in that rich neighborhood early in the morning to play golf. The fact that they didn't stop him proves they knew it was OJ and that he was in town. They probably have a special code now for black male celebrities since quite a few of them have been stopped while driving fancy cars." My colleagues didn't understand the crime of driving while black.

I also used to tell my classes in the nineties about how I came to Cal Poly on a Saturday to pick up my check (after this incident I used direct deposit), noticed that the window in the door of my building was broken, and realized there might be a robbery in progress. Instead of calling the campus police, I stupidly entered the building to pick up my check, acting like Cagney and Lacey as I peeped around corners before moving forward, but then when I was ready to leave the building, I saw a campus police officer. My first response was relief, but the second response was an angry thought that he might suspect I was the thief. No middle-aged white woman would have that second thought. Most smart blacks do not view the police or anyone else in uniform as on their side.

I've also noticed how little note has been taken of the fact that the two New York cops killed by the insane black man were not white. I think the mayor commented today at the Chinese cop's funeral that this was a crime against blue. But the point should be made that the cops who killed unarmed blacks were white, and this black cop killer who claimed he was responding to those murders killed two nonwhite cops.

Finally, my response to the people who want to blame the black unarmed children and criminal black folks in general for these murders is to point out that George W. Bush was arrested for a DUI at age 28 or 29, admitted that he was a drunk until he was 40, and yet became President in his fifties. I also have mentioned the actor Mark Wahlberg, who brutally beat an Asian man when he was an admitted 16-year-old punk. He's now seeking a pardon, and his Asian victim supports his request. Wahlberg was not wealthy when he was young, but he is white, and his victim is nonwhite. He and Bush got second chances, but these young black boys did not. I have also mentioned how early 20th Century intellectuals and artists like Du Bois and James Weldon Johnson, the so-called Talented Tenth blacks, complained at the beginning of the last century that blacks were being judged by the worst of their race instead of the best, and I think it's tragic that it's still happening 100 years later. Black people should not all have to be model citizens, perfect parents, and mature, responsible, law-abiding children to avoid being stopped and frisked, followed in stores, and shot in the streets by cops. Until black people can be as bad as white people like Bush and Wahlberg without being killed or locked in jail for decades, we will not have overcome.

I have one other thought. It seems to me that there have been more of these shootings of unarmed young black men and boys since Obama became President. One way to prevent black boys from growing up to be President or even to vote for President is to kill them.

[Mark]

Mary - I couldn't agree with you more emphatically. Even as I believe the political realm is Kabuki drama, I think the realm of soi-disant law enforcement has strictly to do with the protection of one class (and one color). The victims see the mechanism for what it is. For even peripheral members of the privileged class, the reality is opaque. They can't see it, because there is no such "crime" as driving while white. Or having power while white (Obama's ultimately intolerable transgression). I think you're right: you would have been viewed with suspicion and probably questioned by the campus police, and the campus police are just another articulation of the apparatus of division and enforcement of division (and protection of the prerogatives of privileged predators), as Kriss perceived, and as I've had personal cause to perceive, though I won't discuss that here.

And even your highly-educated white colleagues can't see it, because the status of the police as indistinguishable from the law, as indistinguishable from moral justice, is just... axiomatic: part of the atmosphere privileged people breathe. They don't understand that they're living in a separate ecosphere, and the air is very different outside the dome.

Finally, I do believe the proliferation of these shootings-with-impunity is not uncorrelated with the circumstance -- rage-inducing for a segment of the population that doesn't even understand that it's being economically ravaged by the truly privileged for whom "the law" exists -- that we have a black president. (Half-black, genetically speaking, but it hardly matters to the perceptual dynamic. And it shouldn't matter at all, but no amount of genetic "whiteness" is "exculpatory" to racists, and not even a discernible trace of genetic "non-whiteness" fails to offend the racial purity ethic of the Slytherin mentality.)

[Mary]

Mark, if you didn't destroy your television because Trump is back on it, you might check out Oprah's station this month. She's promoting her movie "Selma" by looking at the Civil Rights era. Last night, instead of watching Trump's silly show, I saw an Oprah special that showed various black celebrities discussing their encounters with racists and racism. Sidney Poitier became emotional at one point. But Condoleezza Rice was the most interesting because she's conservative. She described the effect on her of the Birmingham bombings, especially the one killing the four young girls, and said that she did not believe that Americans could ignore race. In other words, she debunked the colorblind myth that so many conservatives and even a few white liberals try to use to shut down discussion of racism.

[Mark]

It's OK, Mary. I got a new TV and reprogrammed it using a facial recognition algorithm automatically to replace all appearances of Trump's face with a radioactive biohazard sign. I understand Condoleezza in one way (and I'm certainly in no position to judge her, and would never presume to), but I completely fail to understand her ability to compartmentalize so well that she can support a conservative agenda. I don't know. Perhaps it was easier under Bush, and she certainly has the right to embrace any ideology she wants to, however frustrating it is to watch. I don't complain when wealthy, entitled white people embrace liberalism (I celebrate), so it would be hypocritical of me, and absurd, to say that a person belonging to an oppressed minority is forbidden to be conservative, and yet I still have the uneasy feeling that I'm invoking a false equivalency. Howsoever... she unquestionably did the country a great service by debunking the pernicious colorblind myth from her personal experience and from a position of credibility with conservatives, and I can certainly respect and celebrate that. How many self-identified conservatives there are left who'd even listen to a black woman, though (since most of the ones capable of shame have presumably fled the TP-dominated Republican Party), is another question. I'd really give a lot to know what goes on in Dr. Rice's mind. You and I and she are all academics, and even most white academics are liberals -- and academe is one venue in which it's not hard or unpragmatic to be liberal, for the most part -- but you probably understand her much better than I do.