Warning, I don't understand population density!
Looking at the photos of Glen Beck’s 9-12 project I not only felt a deep sadness of how uneducated many Americans are regarding grammar civics and history, but I also thought about the conservatives who weren’t there. In fact I really identified with them. While I trend leftish my family has several sharp-as-tacks conservatives. As a TA I always pulled for the well-read plucky conservative kid in class discussions (mind you , not the “I just read Ayn Rand’s wikipedia page and think I am so smart” didactic bastards). The point is that my students, and myself, benefit from from a smart interlocutor who is willing to share a different perspective and challenge ideas. As much as I usually disagree with them, I enjoy hearing what people like William F. Buckly, George Will and Tony Blankley or even Pat Buchanan (to name a few) have to say on a particular issue. How sad that the public face of the conservative movement has been reduced to the followers of Glen Beck. There are countless legitimate counter arguments to any of Obama’s proposals (from any part of the political spectrum). His Kenyan birth, tiny square mustache and hammer and sickle tramp-stamp tattoo are not among them.
Of course the obvious parallel is supporters of Palestine. While I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, those who latch on to the issue often make it difficult for me to want to work with them. Campus LaRouche followers and People’s Revolutionary Workers Marxist Blah Blah Blah members usually have the equivalent intellectual heft of the afore-mentioned undergrad Ayn Rand disciples. Similarly, many (not all) of the Muslim Student Association members I have met on North American campuses are not only blinkered by silly dogma, but easily brow beaten by the more conservative elements of their groups. You can debate till you are blue in the face if the resistance of Hamas is “legitimate”– I think the more important issue is that they are puritanical idiots that only look even remotely palatable when compared to the bumbling, autocratic and corrupt PA. For me, those advocating an academic or cultural boycott on any country are not only myopic and probably lacking any kind of political savvy, they are espousing a self-defeating course of action and possibly entering dubious moral territory (been working on a post on this topic for a while and hope to have it ready soon). The list goes on…
As someone who advocates for the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, and the end of the occupation this situation makes it incredibly difficult for me to feel inclined to work with umbrella organizations as that umbrella often contains people I have no interest in working with or being associated with. I don’t want to march next to signs as idiotic as the ones in the Glen Beck parade even if it is for a cause I support.
Related posts:
Nimer, excellent! As a conservative who is not at all excited about Glen Beck, and is very tired of being lumped in and covered with all kinds of nasty, contemptuous labels, I applaud your identification with those who stayed home.
It seems one cannot disagree with President Obama's lack of clarity on healthcare plans or spending sprees without being called a racist. Like anyone who criticizes Hamas being suspected of being a Zionist. The Palestine parallel was priceless.
Posted by kinzi | September 14, 2009, 7:57 amHigh mindedness and intellectual superiority don't play into our problems at all then?
Blaming individuals instead of concentrating on the bigger problem of massive misinformation and complete lack of truthful sources on Palestine in the mainstream only serves the purposes of those doing the lying. People who are uninformed but are pulling in the same general direction would appreciate your tolerance, information, your well-honed and informed argument over your derision. We get nowhere by throwing up our hands and walking away from "stoopid" but otherwise well-meaning people. Nowhere is exactly where the people in charge of the messaging (and the foreign policy the corporations and the health care industry) want us to get.
Posted by Michael | September 14, 2009, 5:14 pm…the bigger problem of massive misinformation and complete lack of truthful sources on Palestine in the mainstream only serves the purposes of those doing the lying.
Exactly right. Too much propaganda is making well-meaning Palestinian advocates seem like idiots or liars.
Nowhere is exactly where the people in charge of the messaging (and the foreign policy the corporations and the health care industry) want us to get.
Wrong. It's funny how people always try to make the corporations into the bad guys. And the health care industry is in need of some reforms, and the industry recognizes that and is cooperating, but the industry does NOT need to be taken over by the government.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 16, 2009, 12:09 amNow that was a rant if I ever (h)(r)ea(r)d one.
Thanks for sharing, although definitely don't agree with all your points. I mean, as a didactic bastard…
Posted by SanaKF | September 14, 2009, 7:54 pmgood post.
I don't believe that any of the groups today, including leftists, are open-minded to anything except bigotry and insults. they are as closed-minded as what I see from the nutty right.
Posted by Mikee | September 15, 2009, 1:38 pmMikee:
The leftists are the most closed-minded – they want rules, government control, regulation, with supervision and governance into as many aspects of life as possible, reducing freedom and choice.
Conservatives are the most open-minded: when you have freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility you are open to many more possibilities. Smaller government and less interference is a good thing.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 15, 2009, 10:20 pmOh please.
I'd say lefties have traditionally been more open-minded (and this is coming from a self-identified conservative – albeit of the European sort). Sometimes government intervention is necessary, like in healthcare and education. It's not Marxist to ensure that people at least start their lives in a similar position. Why should a child be responsible for the actions of his/her parents? Rules are also necessary sometimes, which is why we have laws.
Conservatives have traditionally been dogmatic defenders of the status-quo. They invoke liberty when it suits them but always seem to find reasons to deny others liberty. (e.g. Conservative attitudes towards the Burqa or towards abortion)
I admit, many lefties are closed-minded – such as when trade unions try to force economically un-viable wage-rises or when they endorse protectionism. But the extreme fringe within the right-wing in the US is a blot on the state. The fact that it's becoming mainstream is worrying for the rest of the world – especially so seeing as the US is still the world's richest and most powerful country.
Posted by Shafiq | September 15, 2009, 11:04 pmLeftists are NOT open minded… They want to legislate everything and force their ways onto everyone else. Conservatives believe in law and order, and freedom, and personal responsibility. But not forcing things down peoples throats the way the liberals do.
The radical left are particularly worrisome because they want to impose radical ideas and outlandish changes with disastrous consequences, and they are against Capitalism which is what America what it is today.
There is no universal Conservative attitude toward the burqa? And abortion is a medical procedure… you no more have a "right" to an abortion than you have a right to a nosejob. And the different is that abortion is murdering babies.
The lefties are the culture of death, the culture of deciding if a human life is valuable enough, and if its not, they want to end it… they promote assisted suicide, abortion, and they beat the drums of death for Terri Schiavo. That was a state-sanctioned execution of an innocent women, guilty of nothing more than being handicapped. But you and your types have all these reasons why she needed to suffer a painful death by dehydration.
But the lefties are hypocrites – while they support euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion, they do not support the death penalty for convicted murderers. wtf? So only if you're old or sick or handicapped – or inconvenient – you should die, but if you are a convicted murderer you should not die.
What "extreme fringe within the right-wing in the US"? Give an example? The extreme fringe of the right wing are a bunch of survivalists doing military training out in the woods… you never hear anything out of them. How are they becoming "mainstream"? Or do you have some other folks in mind? Are you calling those who resist Obama's radicalism "extreme fringe" lol
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 16, 2009, 12:39 amAgain, leftists are open-minded to realise that sometimes government intervention is necessary and again, Conservatives only want freedom when it suits them (e.g. their stance on abortion). The left in the US is not against Capitalism, they simply know that it doesn't always work and precautions need to be taken to account for that (hence the need for regulation in some industries).
Most Conservatives in the US are for the banning of the Burqa (so much for liberty) and if you want to have an abortion and you're willing to pay for it, then yes you should have the right to one. Abortion is quite obviously not 'murdering babies', if the embryo is not born and is not developed enough for it to survive on its own if the mother did give birth. You can't kill a person if it was never alive to begin with.
Lefties are the culture of death? Coming from Conservatives who still hang on to the notion of an 'eye for an eye' and support the death penalty. The difference between assisted suicide / abortion and the death penalty is that the former is the choice of the individual and the latter is forced (and has no effect on crime rates whatsoever). They also support regulation to make sure assisted suicides are exactly what the person wants and they haven't been pressured into it. Or would you prefer it if a terminally ill patient suffered greatly through the last couple of months of his/her life, because your morals tell you that they shouldn't be allowed to end their life?
The extreme fringe within the US right-wing are the Birthers – the ones that delude themselves into thinking that Obama is not eligible to be President. Then you have the constant comparisons to Stalin and Hitler (sometimes both). And then you have the nightmare-ish visions of him 'destroying America', which you are also guilty of. And finally, you have the prayers 'wishing for him to fail' or ' for God to take his life and save America'.
I'm not even mentioning the deliberate campaign of lies about foreign healthcare systems and Obamacare to try and derail the healthcare reform process. Death Panels? Obamacare includes government funded abortions?
Posted by Shafiq | September 16, 2009, 8:43 amAgain, leftists are open-minded to realise that sometimes government intervention is necessary and again, Conservatives only want freedom when it suits them (e.g. their stance on abortion). The left in the US is not against Capitalism, they simply know that it doesn't always work and precautions need to be taken to account for that (hence the need for regulation in some industries).
Most Conservatives in the US are for the banning of the Burqa (so much for liberty) and if you want to have an abortion and you're willing to pay for it, then yes you should have the right to one. Abortion is quite obviously not 'murdering babies', if the embryo is not born and is not developed enough for it to survive on its own if the mother did give birth. You can't kill a person if it was never alive to begin with.
Lefties are the culture of death? Coming from Conservatives who still hang on to the notion of an 'eye for an eye' and support the death penalty. The difference between assisted suicide / abortion and the death penalty is that the former is the choice of the individual and the latter is forced (and has no effect on crime rates whatsoever). They also support regulation to make sure assisted suicides are exactly what the person wants and they haven't been pressured into it. Or would you prefer it if a terminally ill patient suffered greatly through the last couple of months of his/her life, because your morals tell you that they shouldn't be allowed to end their life?
The extreme fringe within the US right-wing are the Birthers – the ones that delude themselves into thinking that Obama is not eligible to be President. Then you have the constant comparisons to Stalin and Hitler (sometimes both). And then you have the nightmare-ish visions of him 'destroying America', which you are also guilty of. And finally, you have the prayers 'wishing for him to fail' or ' for God to take his life and save America'.
I'm not even mentioning the deliberate campaign of lies about foreign healthcare systems and Obamacare to try and derail the healthcare reform process. Death Panels? Obamacare includes government funded abortions?
Posted by Shafiq | September 16, 2009, 8:43 amThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that by the year 2016, 3 million people who have employer-based health care would lose it because the employers would stop offering it. That's probably a low estimate. It would be cheaper and easier for businesses to pay a penalty and let the government provide the coverage.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 6:46 amObamacare includes government funded abortions?
The answer is YES.
The plan pays for abortions:
<a href="http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/20…” target=”_blank”>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/20…
Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.
<a href="http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-…” target=”_blank”>http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-…
The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups.
H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status. Nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits.
MORE HERE
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 6:40 amThe Capps amendment does contain a statement – as we noted in an earlier article – that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers. The Capps language also would allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies ("affordability credits" for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion.
Obamacare would allow tax-payer subsidised abortions only on federally-subsidised private plans, but the majority would have to be paid privately. This is no different from the existing system.
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 8:51 amTHE PLAN PAYS FOR ABORTION
But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 10:19 amAgain, if you look at the bottom of the paragraph you quoted, people would receive federal subsidies (not full funding), and would be subject to the Capps ammendment.
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 2:12 pmYour first two links are broken. If they're real, please fix or repost them. Thank you.
Posted by Suddha | September 17, 2009, 1:26 pmsometimes government intervention is necessary and again
You did know, didn't you, that it was the Conservatives who wanted regulation of Fannie and Freddie long before the crisis that spread from the housing sector to the whole world? Guess who blocked the regulation – leftists. These videos and articles sum it up pretty well:
vids:
Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie
Timeline
Democrats
articles:
THE REAL SCANDAL
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
Take a look at these Shafiq, this is real and just shows how the leftist-controlled mainstream media in the U.S. really let the people down by not covering any of this accurately. And now the mainstream media form a protective barrier around the Obama administration… for example you never heard anything about Van Jones in the media until he quit… even though videos and everything else were coming out about him before that – if that had been a Conservative, do you think the media would've done that?
Most Conservatives in the US are for the banning of the Burqa
Do you have a poll? Anything? Are you just making assumptions?
Lefties are the culture of death – yes – this coming from the simple fact that they support euthanasia, assisted suicide, "end-of-life counseling", and abortion. And you are wrong, the death penalty DOES have an effect on crime rates. I take it you are against the death penaly for convicted murderers, like the liberals, and yet the liberals made such great cases for the death of Terri Schiavo… legal cases, medical cases, you name it, they were for killing her.
lol you've been eating up the liberal media's portrayal of the healthcare debate I see. More below….
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 7:15 amWe've already had this discussion over the financial crisis. I told you then that both Democrats and Republicans were to blame for it and that in my opinion (as an economics student), the de-regulation of the banking system played a much bigger part in the crisis than the refusal to de-regulate Fannie and Freddie. Frankly, I have to no time for your partisan rants.
And I know that many of the pro-Obama news outlets can't seem to find anything wrong with him, just like Fox can't seem to find anything right about him.
As for the Burqa, most Conservatives I've come across supported Sarkozy when he said he was going to ban the Burqa. I got the opinions of a range of Conservatives and I'm using the replies I got to make my assumption. And then you go on again lefties blah blah blah.
And as for Obamacare, no, I haven't eaten up the liberal media's portrayal, simply because I don't use American media for my news. The House Bills are crap – I'll give you that (will end up costing too much without solving the existing problems that make health insurance so expensive). But if I was American, I'd support his bill because the Republicans aren't coming up with an alternative. They've seem to become the party of NO – blocking an attempt at healthcare reform.
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 8:44 amIt's unfortunate that you don't comprehend what happened, how toxic assets made from sub-prime mortgages poisoned the system.
Financial services were not deregulated during the Bush Administration.
President Bill Clinton signed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, which could be considered a deregulation bill. In 2000, Congress also passed legislation that, among other things, clarified that certain kinds of financial instruments were not regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Among these were "credit default swaps," which have played a role in the meltdown.
In the nine years since that legislation–including the eight years of the Bush presidency–Congress has enacted no further legislation easing burdens on financial services industry.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 10:52 amThe Gramm-Leach-Biley Act was a Republican act. Clinton simply signed it into law. The other deregulation bill was spearheaded by none other than Gramm again. And then you have the most important decision, by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to relax rules in 2004, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages.
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 2:10 pmBut if I was American, I'd support his bill because the Republicans aren't coming up with an alternative.
Republican health-care plan ignored
the president failed to see that many of the Republican members were holding up copies of the Republican health-care plan. Since April, Obama has not invited any Republicans to the White House.
House Republicans Offer Health Care Plan
House Republicans unveiled a plan [June 17] that they say would solve the nation's health care crisis.
Conservative ideas for health care
Minn. Republicans, Blue Dogs stand up against Obama health care plan
Shafiq you are a victim of the liberal media. Even quoting their "party of NO" crap.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 10:12 amThe Republican bill was 4 pages long and did nothing about the millions uninsured.They haven't said how they're going to reform Medicaid, nor does it mention how its going to tackle the millions of people who are insured but aren't covered for the most important medical procedures. People want serious efforts at healthcare reform that will change things significantly.
I was hoping that it would come about in the form of the bill by the 'Gang of Six', with concessions made by both sides. But it seems some members of this Gang are determined to block all attempts at reform (ahem. who just happen to be Republican).
And I've said it before, I have no exposure to liberal media. I don't watch any of the US news outlets nor do I read any of the papers.
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 1:15 pmThe president mocked his opponents for suggesting that his plan would lead to death panels, ignoring the fact that senators from his own party had modified their plan precisely because they saw this claim was correct. The president mocked the idea that his plan was a federal takeover of health care, but only a few moments earlier, he had explained how he would dictate exactly what type of policies insurance companies would be allowed to offer.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 7:16 amThe death panels was an accusation of my healthcare system, which was completely untrue. As for the legislation regulating what type of insurance policies companies would be able to sell, that is necessary to make sure insurance companies offer legitimate plans.
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 8:54 amWhat government-run program has operated as smoothly and as efficiently as originally promised? How many pay for themselves? Why should Americans believe that this time it would be different?
Obama said that more than 30 million American citizens cannot get health care coverage. That number is high, but let's assume it's correct. Health care reform needs to address the problems of that roughly 10 percent of the population, not this sweeping, costly change.
The latest budget projections show the national debt rising from $5.8 trillion last year to $7.6 trillion this year and $14.3 trillion in 2019. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the debt will rise from 40.8% of the gross domestic product in 2008 to 53.8% in 2009 and 67.8% in 2019.
Contrary to everything we were told by Obama about "pay-as-you-go," "cutting the deficit in half," and a "new era of responsibility," he is in fact exploding the deficit at warp speed and utterly bankrupting this country with trillions of dollars of unprecedented, needless debt.
The non-partisan CBO released its report on the budget, projecting a staggering $7 trillion deficit by the year 2019.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 7:16 amWell, none in the US, but the healthcare systems in the other OECD countries do work smoothly. But then again, no business runs smoothly an efficiently straight away.
Let me ask you this, what's your version of healthcare reform?
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 9:00 amConservative ideas for health care
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 10:21 amSo someone got a few bad pictures from the over 2 million people there.
Here are some BETTER PHOTOS from the rally.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 15, 2009, 9:27 am..Better?
I see.
All I know is that's a lot of white folk promoting hatred against a black president. But purely coincidental, obviously.
Posted by SanaKF | September 15, 2009, 5:51 pmlmao! You're joking, right? You're not serious?
All I see are people protesting massive out-of-control spending, and a government takeover of the health-care system. It has nothing to do with race.
This isn't a racial stunt like that "million man march" led by that Nation of Islam guy Louis Farrakhan. This is the real deal. This is about the future of America.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 15, 2009, 11:42 pmSpeaking of promoting hatred against a President, remember all that hatred directed towards George W. Bush? Was that racist?
How come people involved with Islam are so caught up with race, anyway?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 16, 2009, 12:27 amLOL yeah, I was joking. Totally.
Posted by SanaKF | September 16, 2009, 1:25 amOMGRACIST
I guess you heard what Jimmy Carter said?
Carter's a moron, when he was President he ruined the economy, caused big inflation, gas shortages ect, The Iranians took American hostages (they let them go when they heard Ronald Reagan was coming to town!) Reagan came in and fixed everything. We're going to need another Reagan after this Obama catastrophe. Do you think Sarah Palin could do it? Wouldn't it be nice to have an honest, down-to-earth person after the sleazy slick-tongued Obama?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 18, 2009, 4:46 amWhile it's difficult for me to respect the kind of people who would fall for the cheap line of bullshit offered up by two-bit Elmer Gantry wannabes like Glenn Beck, I have to say that I am equally saddened and disgusted by the kind of commentary I see from so-called "liberals" sneering at what they perceive to be a bunch of dumb rednecks (though I should point out I like Nimr's article and don't see it in this light—I'm just making a general commentary). Modern "conservatism" seems dedicated to the idea that the only appropriate role of government is to provide military, police and a court system—basically, to kill or lock up people as needed—and any attempts by government to improve the lot of the people or "promote the general welfare" as it says in the Constitution is socialist tyranny. The army and the police are not a threat to liberty, welfare is—just ask any Latin American.
It is equally difficult for me to respect sneering, elitist liberals who think everything is about race, and I do mean everything. If government is the enemy to conservatives, with any attempts by government to better the lives of its citizens leading inexorably to socialism, then white people are the enemy to many liberals, particularly academic liberals who get their "liberalism" from books, and not their hearts and heads. To such liberals, anybody who opposes Obama's so-called "health reform" plan is motivated solely by a racist hatred of Obama. There have been a slew of such articles recently invoking the usual anti-white race-baiting to explain away the growing dissatisfaction with Obama, particularly among whites, and indeed, such race-baiting is becoming the lingua franca of the so-called "progressive" movement.
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that his health care "reform" consists of making all American citizens indentured servants of the corrupt health industry or risk paying a fine. Last I checked, indentured servitude is a form of slavery. Nor could it have anything to do with the fact that Obama and the Democratic party are a bunch of frauds and con men who are every bit as much in bed with the ruling class as the Republicans are, and have both pursued and acquiesced to policies that are identical to theirs. No, if you are are white, and you dislike Obama and the Dems, or worse, self-identify as a conservative, it is because you are a racist.
At this point, not only are the Democratic and Republican parties carbon copies of each other whose sole purpose is to protect, preserve and strengthen the power and privileges of the ruling class, but in many ways so are mainstream "liberalism" and "conservatism" as political ideologies. In my opinion, these ideologies, despite their apparent differences, have been socially engineered by the ruling class and propagated through the media and educational sytem to brainwash Americans and steer their anger and energy into avenues where it will either do no harm to the powers-that-be or help solidify their control. such as supporting the Democratic party or bullshit "anti-war" organizations like Moveon that are basically frontgroups for the ruling elite.
Part 1
Posted by Sean2009 | September 17, 2009, 1:45 amGlad to see you posting Sean.
In any case I agree with your general assessment. The polarization that results from playing the race card has done a great job of diverting the debate on health care away from the actual issues.
But at the same time, I do believe that there is a racial component that has unfortunately seeped into some of the discourse.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72…
At these rallies, the people might be coming with good intentions (and I highly doubt that they are evil pitchfork wielding hill billies like some "liberals" have made them out to be), they sincerely believe that Obama is screwing them over (and technically his healthcare bill is a pile of crap) but the signs and placards they are waving are simply over the top. Furthermore, the arguments they use to fight Obama's policies are equally hysterical.
Heres just a sampling of the slogans at these rallies:
"The Zoo has an African, and the White House has a lyin African"
"Cap Congress, and trade Obama back to Africa."
"Obama for President of Kenya"
"If your ears are so big, why can't you hear us Americans" (as if Obama isin't American… not to mention the hyper africanized picture used to depict Obama)
Posted by Arayus | September 19, 2009, 9:28 pmPart 2
Conservatism scares people away from supporting genuine progressive movements with the spectre of communism, and the liberals with their endless emphasis on race and anti-white racism in particular ensure that we will always be divided on the basis of our race and ethnicity, forever "celebrating our diversity" or pointing fingers at each other rather than celebrating that which unites us together—our common humanity, or our common identity as Americans. At the same time, anti-white racism by fauxgressive liberals keeps the white working class, who have traditionally been the greatest threat to the ruling elite in America, squarely disgusted with progressivism in general when it it is in their best interest to fight for a genuine progressive movement, particularly should one emerge outside the two party system. God forbid, we should ever stop seeing each other as Whites, Blacks, Hiispanics or whatever locked forever in competition with each other due to our cultural differences, and start seeing each other as fellow human beings who have a common interest in working together. Divide and rule is one of the tried and true means by which ruling elites from the dawn of history have kept themselves in power, so it should be little wonder the ruling class would welcome the liberal insistence on race above all else and the great pains so many academic liberals take to deny the role class plays in modern America despite its prominent place in human history as a whole.
There are two articles I read recently that brillaintly illustrate what our political system today is all about. This comment from the Vineyard of the Saker is probably the most concise and spot-on description of the modern American conservative movement I have yet seen:
"Frankly, most Americans are just like the bulls in Spain who spend the last 15 minutes of their lives trying to fight a piece red (Communist?) cloth while being utterly oblivious to the dude how is shaking it in front of their noses until he kills them."
http://www.google.com/reader/view/#stream/feed%2F…
And for the dissection of what modern American liberalism is all about, there's this:
http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?commentId=…
"The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party — the essential service it renders to the US power structure — lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."
As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve — it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place."
As a leftist, I have no use for Red-scare "conservatives" or Redneck-scare "liberals."
Posted by Sean2009 | September 17, 2009, 1:45 amE.g. Sotomayor and the firefighers
Posted by Shafiq | September 17, 2009, 2:13 pmThe leftists will be counting on Americans to forget not only that it was Democrats who destroyed the economy (and then used the fallout from their own policy disasters to get themselves elected), but also that Bush had actual, extremely expensive crises to fix…almost all of which were Democrat-created. The Clinton Recession,9/11 , Katrina, two wars, rampant outsourcing…Bush's entire presidency was spent doing damage control for non-stop, Democrat policy failures.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 7:01 amThe leftists will be counting on Americans to forget not only that it was Democrats who destroyed the economy (and then used the fallout from their own policy disasters to get themselves elected), but also that Bush had actual, extremely expensive crises to fix…almost all of which were Democrat-created. The Clinton Recession, 9/11 , Katrina, two wars, rampant outsourcing…Bush's entire presidency was spent doing damage control for non-stop, Democrat policy failures.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 7:01 amObama is also cleaning up after continuous left-wing catastrophes, including his own (he helped block Fannie Mae reforms, raided it for campaign contributions on its way down, and even sued Citibank into lowering its lending standards), and has already spent far, far more than Bush could ever dream…on sleazy constituent-payoff scams that had zero impact on the economy. And now he seeks to pile on trillions of dollars more to address a fraudulent, invented uninsured "crisis."
Bush's spending was urgently necessary and a drop in the bucket compared to what Obama has spent on his relentless partisan scams.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 7:07 am