What electing a Black President....

can do to a party ! My Lord...they've lost their minds.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/16/cpac-panel-on-transcending-raci...

Not sure how any rational person could even admit to being part of this fiasco ? Wonder how many actually realize that they've left the rails primarly because of one Black man ?

I don't think I want to go anywhere near that particular can of worms.

It's funny what black means these days. For instance, is Ted Cruz 'latino'? My daughter is half black, being of Dravidian heritage, but she's whiter than most poodles. Obama is a Hawaiian/Chicagoan with 'black blood'. It's surely enough to make a man miss the Black Panthers.

CPAC

It's like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest - except that not just one guy is a lobotomy patient - it's like Oprah showed up and said "YOU get a lobotomy - and YOU get a lobotomy, and YOU get a lobotomy", etc.

And also in that they CHOOSE to be there...

>1 faceinbook: That article makes me think that Americans still don't know how to talk about race. They can't "discuss," much less debate, the issue because the slightest disagreement is taken as an attack on a person's identity. No one ever seems to come to the table willing to listen, much less willing to have their minds changed.

CPAC is performance art.

>2 RidgewayGirl:
I think it is pretty safe to say that the can of worms is open. The more efforts made by the Right to close the can the more worms seem to escape !

>7 theoria:
"CPAC is performance art."

So is "governing" by our lawmakers on the Right.

>6 southernbooklady:
First we have to admit that we are different. We are not "all the same". As soon as we approach the subject of differences...then we are being racist.

9> But you're not interested in individual differences, you just seem to care about differences between races, assuming that people within those races are more or less the same. That type of thinking is racist by definition.

>5 RickHarsch: But please don't tell them that they are pro-choice.

>10 jjwilson61:
"But you're not interested in individual differences, you just seem to care about differences between races, assuming that people within those races are more or less the same. '

Not true....not true at all ! To not differentiate between races one has to be deaf and/or blind, since most of us are not either , we have to start from there.
Every single person is unique....but some are Black or Red or White......some are genetically prone to specific diseases while others are not...sometimes there are patterns of susceptibility that follow racial groups...this is NOT racism it is a reality. So, for the sake of physical well being, it is important to note race when dealing with medical issues...... this is a fact, hence to me, it seems that since we do have certain differences in physical make up, it does not end there.......the line between racial and cultural differences is shady but real none the less,we seem to want to erase that line and homogenize society (preferably along the lines of the great White race...which is something I consider racist) .....if we continue to pretend we are all the same, we will continue to see real racism....which is the inability to accept those who are different one from the other as being EQUAL.

What do you think the whole deal is with the "otherness" of Obama ? Personally, I am proud to have a President who is "other"....he has much to offer if we would let him. Given his mixed heritage, and his experiences due to that heritage, he certainly must have a unique way of looking at things. To some people Obama will NEVER be the same hence he is not EQUAL....that is the can of worms, that is racism. I don't care that he doesn't look the same, don't care what his cultural beliefs are or about the attributes he may have due to his physical make up, , nor do I feel a strong urge for him to change any of those things, they are intersting, I may learn something from them, however......he is no different than you or I in that he is a human being.

The same holds true for men and women....we are NOT the same...don't think the same...don't perform tasks in the same manner....do not have the same physical make up....but we SHOULD be equal. It is my belief that, during the feminist movement, women spent far too much time trying to prove that they are the same as men rather than trying to prove that the way they do things has equal value. Hence we still have a ways to go.

>10 jjwilson61:
Let me propose this scenerio :

It is medically proven that Native Americans, for the most part, do not metabolize fats and sugars in the same manner as the White race. For as long as White men have had contact with Natives, it is well know that alcohol is an issue.....it is today. Alcoholism amongst the Native Americans is an epidemic. To deal with the issue one first has to acknowledge that Natives can not drink as is the custom amongst White society....they are far more prone to addiction. In order for the individual Native American peoples to live with dignity and a sense of accomplishment, it would benefit if both races were to see this as a truism. It has been our history to look at this physical difference as a weakness...or as a default of some kind in the Natives. In fact I would venture to guess that few people know or understand this at all....we are far too busy insisting that we are "all the same" and as American's we should fit the mold that is a standard set by White Americans. The difficulty Natives have with alcohol is not a "weakness" nor is it a "default"..... racism made it seem so, when an acknowledgment that all races are not the same would be far more beneficial.

Have I been a racist and pigeon holed Natives into a group or have I tried to liberate them from something distructive to their individual dignity ? To me it seems far more racist to insist in sameness when there are differences.

12> The leap from "being prone to specific diseases" to social or cultural differences is questionable. Regarding Obama, and "race" in general, most of what we perceive as race are projections onto visible physical differences of different beliefs about the meaning of visible physical differences. There are differences between individuals and between groups; there are also differences between individuals within groups. To ascribe these differences to "race" is empirically suspect or anachronistic or both.

Fox-speak if I've ever seen it:
“The conservative movement is about making it better so that everyone can do better with their lives. True racists are the people trying to hold others down by giving them handouts or restricting their rights.”

>15 2wonderY:: "restricting their rights"

Like requiring minority groups that are known to have more difficult access to identification records to produce said records before they can vote?

I think they mean that the government is restricting the right of white males to control the health of the women who work for them. It's unfair that they aren't able to dictate what their lady employees might or might not do with the money they earn and it's not like women are actual people who should have rights.

Or that their rights are restricted when other people are allowed to marry, even when they think it's icky?

Or their rights are restricted by allowing people they dislike to serve in the military?

And here I though the world ended when women got the right to vote...(sarcasm toggle now off)

I'm watching the Republican Party spiral down to oblivion in my lifetime; it's like watching a train wreck. You're appalled, but you can't stop watching...

>18 BruceCoulson:: The saddest part is for those of us who once counted ourselves as Republicans, but have been driven away by their descent into loony land...

>14 theoria:
I agree with you...however, in so far as alcohol....how do we separate the two ? Our way of life involves the consumption of alcohol....a lot of it. In order for Natives to create the best for themselves, they will have to involve themselves in social and cultural practices that are different than what we consider "the norm". Just by nature of their physical make up they will create a social stucture that is different than ours.....while it is not the same, it should be seen as "equal".
For all the babbling about sameness and equality, most of us do a lot of things to "fit in" rather than "stand out". Personally I don't think it has to do with racism so much as equality. If we lived in a country where a Black person had always been seen as an equal....rather than equating the color with inequality....no problems. Why did the government outlaw the original Native American ceremonies ? I would say because American's are horribly racist, I don't see that acknowledging that many Natives celebrate in different manner than others is a racist thought. For Natives a powerful drum circle is just as spiritual as high mass on Easter for a Catholic. Different ? Yes ! Equal ? again yes. So in your definition of racism, if I were to make a statement that many Natives would rather sit through a drum circle than high mass would be racist ? I am NOT saying that some Natives do not attend mass, nor am I saying that some Whites don't find themselves at drum circles.....but, culturaly Natives are associated with drum circles and are to this day.
In the same way if we viewed each other as having different thoughts, religions and or back grounds as a plus rather than a minus...we wouldn't find ourselves stuck in "nasty"

By the way, speaking of nasty...did anyone hear Ms Palin at the CPAC......the queen of nasty verbiage. Not sure what it was all about....building a new country by tearing down a President who needed a better back ground check and ridding ourselves of those who don't see things along the same exact line, I guess ?

Mr Campbell, my parents are life-long Republicans (my mother worked for Barry Goldwater) who now define themselves as independents. Maybe this doubling down at each election loss will eventually cause the non-Tea Party types to split from that wing of the party? Every week there's a new article written by somebody who was a rising star in the Republican party until they couldn't stand it anymore.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand...Do you think Canada would take him back?

>17 RidgewayGirl:
"and it's not like women are actual people who should have rights."

I would add the word EQUAL....women should have equal rights. Thus far we've had our "rights" doled out to us by the great white male.....maybe that isn't fair either...men by virtue of their physical make up are stronger, universally women have been given what ever rights they've achived based on this primal fact.

What we think, our accomplishments, our ability to do a job (maybe the same job as a man but in a different manner) are still not seen as equal. Or we would be compensated equally. Never would ten men sit in judgement of whether women have access to their physical/mental well being either, I might add. The visual was stunning in its persumptiousness !

How do we begin to address racism when this is a fact ? Women are never going to BE men.....we need to be equal to men but we will not be men. How are those of a different color ever going to be treated equally when they can not change who they are ? or what they are ?

>21 RidgewayGirl:
"Ted Cruz, on the other hand...Do you think Canada would take him back?"

Some of the best television I've seen in a long time : The Ms. Fienstein dust up with Mr.Cruz !

Mr Cruz was suddenly very thirsty ! Wonder what it is with the Tea Pary and water ? or do they have tea in those cups/bottles ?

Dianne Feinstein did effectively deal with his belittling mansplaining. And Rachel Maddow's editorial on the encounter was marvelous. Of course, it's being marketed as "Maddow's Epic Rant", when she was anything by ranty. A reasonable argument bolstered by facts, when presented by a woman, will invariably be characterized as a shrill rant by those who fail to come up with a good counter argument.

It is interesting that Portman's personal experience is considered a sign of strength (that of changing his mind regarding gay marriage because of the sexual orientation of his son) and Feinstein's means she's too emotionally involved in an issue.

How are those of a different color ever going to be treated equally when they can not change who they are ? or what they are ?

That statement doesn't make any sense, along with the assertion that women will never be men. Do you think everyone is eager to be white guys? While I'm sure the white guys like it well enough, equality doesn't mean wanting testicles or pale skin. It really doesn't.

#24

When men protest something, they use reasoned arguments.

When women complain, they are ranting.

Didn't you get that memo? :)

>24 RidgewayGirl:
"That statement doesn't make any sense, along with the assertion that women will never be men. Do you think everyone is eager to be white guys? While I'm sure the white guys like it well enough, equality doesn't mean wanting testicles or pale skin. It really doesn't."

I just posted several posts on how I value differences......how did you ever get the impression I would want to be equal by being the same ??

Not what I meant......it is those who possess the testicles and pale skin who seem to feel that unless one does, they are somehow inferior. I believe many feminist's, in the early movement, spent a lot of time trying to prove they were the same as men, when that shouldn't be the point at all....the point is equality.....In fact there were studies done, during that time, on the male and female brain to prove that they were the "same" They may very well be the "same" but they often times work differently. Instead of proving that we can do the same jobs that men do (which I am certain, in many cases we can and do) we should have been trying to make certain that those things we do well is of equal value....it is taking a long time to get there. There are things we do better....obviously they are not of the same value as what men do or there wouldn't be so many working women living below the poverty line.
Because we are basically a patriarchal society...men have pretty much dictated the value of what women do....which of course is inferior to that which they themselves accomplish. White men are still pretty much on top of things but it is slipping, never so much as when a man of color was voted into the highest office in the country....sending many of them into a nonsensical tailspin from which they haven't recovered.

There is NO WAY I've ever wanted to have testicles or pale skin...thank you very much.....I've spent my life trying to prove that the lack there of does not mean that one should be treated differently when, doing one's job, dealing with the legal system (or any authority figure for that matter) and, that the respect men feel entitled to, should be given to women without having to prove themselves in ways men wouldn't dream of. I feel the same holds true for those individuals of color,who have been held to a different standard. Why should anyone have to prove themselves equal to the white man ? To be expected to do so is either sexist and/or racist.

Equality doesn't have to imply sameness or a lack of individuality at the level of personality. Equality pertains to the way individuals interact with institutions (civil, political, social). 1970s feminist theory foundered on the opposition of the two; ratification of the ERA was, in part, undermined by it (e.g. see Why We Lost the Era). I sense the sameness (liberal feminist) vs difference (radical feminist) debate is no longer in vogue.

> 27

Ah, yes, the memories. That's all old guys like me have left now. E.g.,

Whenever it was - back in the early eighties? - at a convention of "religious liberals" I wondered into a pro-ERA meeting of about 98 per cent women and, being in my early thirties and thus young and foolish, in the discussion period I ventured to get everyone in the room on the reality page by informing them that, even though I was on their side 1. the ERA was dead 2. Phyllis Schlafly and ilk had obviously won and 3. we all better back up and try something different to advance legal equality. IOW, beating the dead horse labeled ERA was a waste of good time.

I was lucky to escape with my life. I thought I was going to be lynched there for a while.

My point is, I think, is that women can be just as dangerous as men if you push the right buttons.

A word to the wise there guys.

I used to work with a guy who regretted that there were fewer truly flamboyant gay cross-dressers now. They were a reaction to the outrageous hatred and vilification that a gay person faced thirty or forty years ago and since (with loud exceptions) we're more accepting today, there's less need for that. Likewise, early feminists were up against a giant brick wall and their militancy carried the movement forward. Now, feminist simply means that you think women are just as valuable and human as men. You can be a feminist and a homeschooling stay-at-home mom. You can be a feminist and like heels and spa weekends. You can be a feminist and a man. It's about opportunity and the power to make your own choices. But I do miss the old school feminists. To a shy girl being raised in a very traditional and religious household, they were as exotic as koala bears.

Have you seen this, SBL?

>30 Jesse_wiedinmyer: No. Not having kids, I tend to skip over the parenting-targeted stuff. But it's good advice. Acknowledging and talking about something is always better than pretending that it isn't there. The head in the sand strategy doesn't even work for ostriches.

21 -- "my parents are life-long Republicans"

That explains a lot.

>32 barney67:

"my parents are life-long Republicans"

That explains a lot.

Please explain !!!

So were mine......my dad passed a long time ago but my mom died six years after Bush took office. She disliked him intensly, claimed he should have had a few "ass whoppings" when he was growing up. She voted Democratic once in her life time, when she cast a vote for Kerry. I blame Bush for her passing !

Kerry was the first democrat my dad voted for.

ETA: Since Nixon.

MY parents were nominal Republicans who voted for FDR and Truman but deeply admired Dwight D. Eisenhower. (They were less enthused re Nixon but voted for him and were certainly NOT for Goldwater.)

Obama is a "KENYAN KANSAN" as well as an Hawaiian eye and a Chicago pol but he stays away from Kenya as to not underscore the birthright thing? (Beware the hands of Esau?)

He is said to have only "become black" (it seems he had a "choice") when he decided to leave New York for Chicago -- see David Maraniss' perceptive and painstaking study of the young O, "The Story."

He sure LOOKS "black" and he's as light perhaps as Huey Newton but hardly as "dangerous" as Eldridge Cleaver? The "first black prez" of course cannot appear in a dashiki with mirror sunglasses and a rimless Ghanan cap and mimic Stokely eh. (I saw and heard Carmichael once -- a dynamic and intelligent speaker and also very uh "light.") He has to seem more like Bill Cosby I think but without Cosby's "edginess" and thinly coiled anger?

Today the O is in Israel-Palestine and may even wish he were back among his grandfather's Irish forebears hmm but he has been dilatory about making the requisite obeisances to Israel IN Israel and Jewish voters in America, while remaining generally loyal, became more restive and Romneying as a result of Obama's apparent disinterest.

Kenya I think STILL hopes for a "visitation" and the prez probably recoils in that he's going to be treated as Local Boy uh strike that Local "SON" Makes Good In America where life is all right (as long as you're white? it USED to be) and where innumerable Kenyans no doubt wish they were too.

In another way the O is a tough son of a bitch albeit figuratively because his mother was an atheistic liberal scholar who nevertheless submitted to abuse from BOTH his "fathers." If she were alive he MIGHT be a better president -- but then he might be also if his father was, though his father was a flawed man. But then who isn't...

> 35

Uh, whatever dude.

As to Obama's racial identification, he has no choice as an American. He is black. Or African-American.

Those are the rules in America. I neither endorse nor particularly object to them, I just acknowledge the way things are.

In the future perhaps we will be more subtle. In the meantime there is no real debate over the social identification of someone known to have recent African ancestry. But if one can "pass" then one is "white". Pretty much.

Hope this helped.

Whatever...

Welcome to LibraryThing, Michael: you got your first 'Uh, whatever dude.'

This is classic fluff: 'As to Obama's racial identification, he has no choice as an American. He is black. Or African-American.'

What does it mean?

It means I could identify myself as a Euro-American...

Seriously, despite the theories of 'race' having long since being demolished scientifically, they are still esconced in popular speech and beliefs. Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans are identified by skin colouration, no matter how silly the idea of 'race' might be. Just as 'whites' are so designated; 'Latinos', 'Asians', etc. (It's not just in the U.S.; try confusing a Korean with a Japanese in Japan sometime.)

This is how people speak and identify others.

38> The rule of hypodescent, as American as apple pie.

> 39, > 40

Thanks. My point exactly.

But your exegesis of the subject of "race" American-stye is appreciated by all, I am sure.

#43

Although that's sad (and amusing), I'm not sure it's entirely correct. With the current state of political campaigning, anything that might possibly be an issue (real or not) would be raised in an election.

But I doubt it would have reached the level of hysteria that it actually did.

If I could have, I would have posted only the photograph. I think that the Republicans would still be rampaging through our assets, but as you said with less hysteria.

Robert

I think the comments are quite true, though they leave out that Pakistanis et al. would still be getting droned unto death.

But if Obama were white, who knows what nonsense Trump would have gotten up to. At least the Birther stuff kept him from bothering other people.

46> If a hyperdescent rule were recognized in the USA, Obama would be white, without the need for photoshop bleaching.

This is classic fluff: 'As to Obama's racial identification, he has no choice as an American. He is black. Or African-American.'

What does it mean?


Exactly what it says. Race is largely a social construct. As Theoria notes, America is a society that observes hypodescent when deciding upon racial categorisation.

> 36 'he has no choice as an American' That's the part that confused me. Apparently I took it wrong. Sorry, JGL, my mistake.

IF he is "an American" eh! Actually the "If Obama Were White" STILL makes him look like a black Alfred M. Newman.

Or "whatever"...

I think 'whatever'...

I know many Nigers some much lighter than President Obama, who have never considered him "Black." Is President Obama any more or less "Black" than Tiger Woods or The Rock?

Depends on whom you ask...

For many Africans, no American/New World black is truly 'black'. For some in the ghettos; 'acting white' (which Obama most certainly is doing; I mean, he went to college, got a degree, played 'Whitey's Game') means you aren't black enough.

And of course, for many white, Obama is far too black to hold his current position. Being an athlete or entertainer is one thing; but actually hold a position of power and responsibility?

> 52

Tiger Woods is black, yellow and white. Like, e.g., this flag:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru_bow.html

>53 BruceCoulson:
Not only is Obama "Black" even though of mixed heritage....he is married to a "Black" woman....a woman who in now living in the WHITE House...she has people "waiting" on her.... and she experienced this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michelle-obama-jill-biden-booed-nascar-...
At NASCAR ??? The flag waving, gun toting, war supporting crowd ? Seems they forgot the message and were stimulated by the visual.
Uppity.....the both of them....Pres. and Mrs.

What is most disturbing is the fact that many of those ,who are so actively opposing this administration, would not admit that this is a problem.....some of them probably don't even know themselves what they are doing. But, the complete nonsense that has come from the Republican Party is an indication that it has little to do with policy and much to do with emotional turmoil. We can fix policy but we can not fix Black.....the destruction from within of the Conservative Party, destruction that is not only harmful to the country but is also destroying it's host, is the continued denial of what they are doing.

> 55

One of the great pleasures that make life worthwhile is the experiencing of schadenfreude. And I don't mean the petty kind wherein someone takes pleasure in the misfortune of another individual based on some petty disagreement or personal dislike. I mean the kind enjoyed, e.g., by a Jew witnessing an example of the destruction of Nazi beliefs or of an individual Nazi.

I am well aware of how much incredible pain comes to millions of Americans from the election and then the reelection of a black POTUS. The whole idea makes me feel warm and fuzzy and contented inside. I have slept so much better these last four years than I ever did the previous eight.

My only disappointment in life is that I can't make fun of such people to their fucking faces. That would be SO sweet. But many if not most of such people are guns nuts and I don't want to die before my time. Nevertheless I am extremely content with the conviction that reality has a liberal bias that will win out in the end.

>56 JGL53:

Sorry....I do not share your glee. I personally, find it to be sad, sometimes frustrating but for the most part sad. I believe if I find a petty joy in the frustrations and pettiness of others, I am no better than those whose ill advised action and/or statements are so narrow minded and poorly thought out.

I feel the character of a person is not defined so much by the difference in how they see things so much as how they handle themselves in light of those differences. There are many reasons for differing opinions, actions and prejudices. I have a few myself.....if I am criticized in a petty manner, there is no room for improvement. If I respond to criticisim with pettiness...the same holds true.

I do not see the destruction of the Republican Party as a good thing.

> 57

Well I will readily admit that you are a better person than I.

>57 faceinbook: I feel the character of a person is not defined so much by the difference in how they see things so much as how they handle themselves in light of those differences.

Americans seem to excel at whining when things don't go their way.

Worth repeating:

Americans seem to excel at whining when things don't go their way.

I thought we reached for our guns.

Guns and whine. I prefer a pleasant pinot noir myself, with a good book, but preferences differ.

People in other countries whine like sumbitches too when things don't go their way. Or they riot.

Except in those countries where they don't. In some countries everyone is so effing depressed - because there seems no way to ever get out from under - that they just stoically accept that life in general is shitte and always will be. Some of them may mumble into their cheap beer or commiserate in low tones with their compadres in misery in dark musty bars.

I think the only way to play the odds in picking the lone American out of a crowd of, say, Europeans is just pick the fattest one. And even that is changing I understand.

Or apply the geography test.

Re above, "the destruction of the Republican party," as much as I'd wish it (in its CURRENT form, i. e., the tea bagged one) I doubt it. There may even be a Repub prez elected in 2016 but he won't be more uh "liberal" than Obama. (He'll be about as liberal as George W I'd suppose...)

Does Welch waste his words here?

You fools! Pearls before swine!

Welch will offer this prediction -- in 2016 the Republican nominee will be the "last son" of the REAL "American dynasty" (no not that Irish mob of "nouveaus"!) John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (the REAL "favorite son" of the father) who may very well win...

68
Lord ! NOT another Bush !.........he will not win.

I was in favor of Obama in the 2008 primaries because a presidential history of Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton seemed a bit too dynastic. A 2016 race of Bush vs. Clinton might make that unescapable, but at least there's been another name in between :)

>70 Amtep:
difference being, there was only ONE Clinton who was a President. Jeb would be the third Bush President. I don't think the Bushes have a stellar performance as leaders of the free world. I suppose the Republicans are using the "three strikes and you are out" rule when considering Mr. Jeb ?

Another pertinent question that may be asked here is -- who succeeds Obama as the Democratic nominee? I say Hillary is certainly possible but is NOT as "strong" a candidate as some believe. (Reigniting or re-exciting the uh "Clinton era" may be as unattractive as a nouveau Bush one eh.)

So -- John Kerry? Another recycle. Elizabeth Warren? As yet unproven as well as "unknown." Joe Biden? "Viable" but will be 69-70. Dianne Feinstein? Already nearly 80.

I HOPE the Repubs will NOT nominate "Jeb" BECAUSE he could win; I HOPE they stick with such as Rick Santorum, the runner up to Romney as Romney was to McCain eh, BECAUSE I WANT Republicans to lose hmm.

But as "life" has shown me, sadly what "I want" does not always occur...

I'm not sure Jeb's electable. The Republicans have been working so very hard to pretend that his brother never existed and having Jeb as the candidate would mean revisiting the last Republican presidency. Which might mean that the focus on how the Republicans have always run government in a fiscally conservative way might be open to question.

But let's give him a try as a candidate. There doesn't seem to be anyone better out there. Although, Mr Welch, I would also love to see Santorum as the Republican candidate. Gingrich would also be fun. I'd like the moon to be the 51st state, wouldn't you? And watching the family values types try to reconcile choosing Gingrich with their beliefs is just good fun.

The American folk have a propensity to "forget" their history, even the "recent" -- "2016 is another day!" as Miss Scarlett might put it eh.

I would like to see Puerto Rico as the 51st state or better the District of Columbia because the latter would certainly mean two more liberal Democratic senators and the former likely two such.

And I notice you have avoided the selection of a DEMOCRATIC nominee for 2016. You don't beat Jeb Bush or anybody else with "anybody"...

Chelsea Clinton?

Caroline Kennedy?...

If it was the candidate who reminded people of the Clinton years vs. the candidate who reminded them of the Bush II years, I think I know who has the advantage.

Maybe Hillary would beat Jeb but maybe not. Jeb Bush would be a better candidate than the runner up last year, namely Rick Santorum, and remember that the Repubs have nominated the "runner up" the last two times and LOST.

Jeb is not necessarily "W" eh BUT Hillary IS "Bill" and the Clinton years weren't so blissful as one may have sentimentalized...

The economy was a hell of a lot better though.

Yes but the economy will probably not be as great an issue in '16 as it was in '08 and '12 eh...

I think Hillary Clinton will be the candidate. It'll be her election to lose unless the Republicans have someone fantastic locked up in a cellar somewhere.

Jeb is not necessarily "W" eh BUT Hillary IS "Bill" and the Clinton years weren't so blissful as one may have sentimentalized...

Sentimentalized is a good word. He is sentimentalized, and that will be a plus for Hilary. When Bill spoke to the Democratic convention, it was electrifying. Whatever the facts, Bill is fondly remembered, especially after the Bush years. If nothing else, Bush made Clinton look positively glowing.

These days I am hearing REPUBLICANS tell me that they prefer Hilary to Obama, and many have very nice things to say about her. Of course that will change in a few years, but the hatred against Obama, and Bush years will only make HC look the better.

Jesse Jackson Senior in 2020!!

Oh, remember when he ran for President? There was a guy who could make a speech. He appeared on SNL, reading Green Eggs and Ham and it was electrifying.

JJ Sr is old and bitter now, like McCain.

My last ballot cast in the US was for Jackson in the 84 primary in Wisconsin.

I think if we could measure bitter, McCain would still rank higher.

82> "When Bill spoke to the Democratic convention, it was electrifying."

If ever a politician deserved the name Slick Willie it was Mr Clinton. Only he could have gotten away with that. I am only a simple country boy line.

> 87

Bill may be your first lady one day. Will you like him better in that capacity? lol.

Bill may be your first lady one day.

Is it just me, or did anyone else have to read that several times to understand what he was saying?

> 89

Perhaps you're just sleepy. Drink a strong cup of coffee. You should notice it quickly speeds up the cognitive process.

88> three things
I have no plans to live in a republic and I think the prospects of him becoming Prince Consort are slim

I do not dislike him.

And The term is First Bloke.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=first+bloke

In America, I think we'd go for First Guy.

Proper punctuation (capital letters) would have helped more than sleep or coffee.

And it's First Dude.

Only if we're electing the Big Lebowski's wife.

And that is in question?

Hey I'll vote for Hills over Jeb if she's the candydandy -- I've become a "loyal" Democrat electively at least. And gee in a few comments we've revived that spirit of unpredictable uh fun that spells "C-L-I-N-T-O-N" -- of whatever "gender."

But I mutter to myself -- economy back in sputter mode re the March jobs report; Repubs calling Obama's bluff so successfully that the O is saying that "cuts" in social security (means I'M "fucked"?! so to speak) may be uh "necessary"; ALL O legislation stalled and now Kim Jong Un and the north Koreans (hey a name for a band?!) are playing "Cuban Missile Crisis" and "Nuke nuke!" re (Moe, Larry and) Curly?

The O leaves for Colorado to push gun control and leaves Chuck H to hem, haw and bemuse re the nKs. Gun control "easier" than nKs? Hmmm.

Actually not only does 2016 look better and better for the GOP but so does 2014 and that's uh NOT "funny"...

>96 Michael_Welch:
I think you are not giving the general public enough credit. The reason for the sequester....which is reflected in the March jobs report....is the GOP. The reason 31 teachers in the town closest to me, were laid off is due to the policy of the governor Scott Walker.....he who refused funding for our health care through Medicaid....
Also over 150 employees of Aurora Health Care Clinic are getting the axe....some will cry "Obama Care", I say it is because we need a national health care system and the reason we do not is the GOP. $40 Billion cut from Science Researce and Developement ? The GOP. The reason Obama looks ineffective ? The GOP. The reason we can not get any common sense gun laws passed ? Despite wanting a safer enviroment the GOP will not vote for the people but continue to stand by the money. The Senator's who walked out on the parents of the kids who died in Sandy Hook were all GOP members. The Senator's who voted against women's healthcare rights ? GOP. The lawmakers who are loosening the gun laws and tightening the abortion rights ? Take a guess. AND they are flying in the face of popular opinion. You don't think this will all come out at election time ? And let us not forget the Senator who called our Mexican workers "wetbacks" ? We ALL know the color of his party.

IF the GOP is elected into power in 2014 and/or 2016 ? Well then, as a country, we get what we deserve !

The 30 somethings are heading into their future...and I do not believe they see themselves living in a GOP structured society.

The Democrats don't have Fox News.

>98 RickHarsch: Ah yes ! Another form of the Daily Show for the left, sadly a reality show for the right.
Not to worry ! They are starting to snark at each other as well.

One is hmmm "stuck" between giving the public "credit" (the masses!) and wondering why people "shift" so often from seemingly one viewpoint to another -- e. g., Churchill's a great wartime leader but NOW "we" want socialism (July 1945 when the Conservatives were defeated by Labour and the subsequent British "welfare state" was accomplished) to socialism's a mess (and the recently late Maggie Thatcher was elected in 1979 to kick the unions in the arse which she did, with relish and apparent public approval).

Hence re above Churchill's remark that Sigh! Democracy is the worst of possible governments -- except for all the others?

The Repubs gained control in the US house of reps and in statehouses and legislatures throughout the nation in 2010 (including in "liberal" Wisconsin and Michigan, both of which then voted Obama in 2012) because the "great recession" continued for millions beyond its actual "stopping point" technically (Dec 2009) and while the feds had "rescued" Wall Street et. al., they left millions of ordinary folk to lose their homes and jobs without much more than an unemployment check and a payroll tax cut (now rescinded since the budget "deal" of Dec '12 and the unemployment in jeopardy because of the sequester).

Obama is as stymied by the Republicans who have called his sequester "bluffing" as ever and he almost desperately seeks a "deal" in which he's willing to throw overboard millions of social security and medicare recipients in the name of a Clintonesque ("do it to them before they do it to you") "reform" for which he'll be praised as "moderate" and "realistic."

Any "wonder" then why the public gets confused -- who IS "on my side" after all?????? (Nobody?...)

I'm also concerned about the President's willingness to cut people's earned benefits, Mr Welch.

Yes and rightly so -- why must it be ALWAYS the poorest and the most vulnerable who suffer while the wealthiest make out like uh "bandits"? The people who did the best during the great recession were those who caused it.

Ethically and even re Adam Smith there's something "wrong" with that which giving up 5% of one's far more massive income than most doesn't resolve. (Let him give up HALF of his income and maybe he'll "feel" a modicum of "the pain" as Willie used to say...)

Churchill was always disliked by a large portion of the UK war or not. That the country and the propaganda united in a display of national unity and solidarity. did not mean that he was liked/

Republicans were totally out of the picture during Obama's first two years, and his popularity has remained far higher than theirs, yet despite overwhelming Dem power the Repubs have managed to stymie Obama time and again. These Republicans must have some secret power unknown to Progressives—something that allows them even as the minority party to defeat the majority time and again, and to cripple the majority even when the Dems occasionally manage to win one. It's similar to tremendous base-running skills in baseball giving a weak-hitting team an edge over a more powerful one.

What can this arcane skill possibly be?

I think it's their petulant willingness to destroy the country if they don't get their way.

You refer, perhaps, to their continual complaining about spending money that doesn't exist? Or is it simply their concentrated evil, to touch which would destroy any human soul?

Or might it be—just possibly, now—the fact the GOP are able to gain backing from a large segment of the American people who are unwilling to go along with some of Obama's more questionable programs?

> 106

Out of curiosity to which of Obama's more questionable programs are you referring?

I like BHO's drone program, i.e., the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. And I like the Affordable Health Care Act - even though it is not single payer it is still a vast improvement. And I approve of his initiatives against "gun violence". They seem like they ought to help somewhat, though I am also in favor of gun registration.

I suppose you might be referring to the Obama administration not backing off the stupid war on drugs insanity. That is pretty messed up. Perhaps he will "evolve" on that the way he did on gay marriage/gays serving openly in the military.

As to the gross old party - I hesitate to label them pond scum as that would be an insult to actual pond scum. Elected republican officials in general generally hate Obama - because they hate to lose and they doubly hate to lose to a black guy. And about a third of the voters agree, i.e., they hate Obama because he is a black man, and is seen as a bad man, and thus is the worst of all worlds - a bad black man.

The only good human anywhere near what might possibly be a terrorist is a dead human being anywhere near what might possible a terrorist.

And, by the way, in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) the Taliban are the 'enemy', not terrorists.

--107 Thank you for your flattering attention.

I am doubtful about the drone program, actually a continuation and elaboration of Dubya's, partly for the same reason I disliked Clinton's air war in the Balkans. First, I'd like to be more sure we're targeting the right people. Second, I'm unsure of its effectiveness vs morale cost—not our morale but that of potential allies or neutrals. I'm quite willing to take out confirmed terrorist, however, and believe those who associate with such are voluntarily putting themselves in harm's way.

Affordable Care (Obamacare) I oppose in principle and in its practice. It won't be cheaper without significantly reducing the quality of medical care, and it will limit freedom of choice by all parties.

The main problem with most initiatives against gun violence, including Obama's, is they seem doomed to do more harm than good. Like all too many laws they will inevitably end up being enforced more effectively against honest citizens than criminals. They will, I'll admit, make some people feel better for a time.

At one time many now-restricted drugs were quite legal, witness de Quincey's tome. I believe paregoric was still an over-the-counter drug in the 1930's or so. Things are continually added to the list of items forbidden to the public with little reason—including fairly recently potassium permanganate, DDT and rotenone. I would prefer to see many questionable drugs legalized for adults with the understanding that those who chose to use, thereby rendering themselves effectively unemployable, would give up the right to taxpayer assistance.

The danger, though, is that people seem to take longer and longer to become adults, and in any case adult bad habits filter rapidly down to juveniles. Legalizing is not an easy question

I hesitate to take your final paragraph seriously since I'm familiar to the reactions of liberals and progressives whenever a black person runs for office on the Republican ticket. I believe frenzied revulsion might properly describe the phenomenon.

However: My lack of admiration for Obama stems from his narcissism and hypocrisy, his laziness and lack of true interest in leading the nation. His actions re the sequester give a stunning example of poor leadership. First, he blames it on the Republicans, next he takes the most painful steps possible to meet its requirements while continuing to spend on needless programs, and finally he makes an insultingly small sacrifice of income in a weak effort to set an example. The man makes a $400,000 salary and all the expense allowance dreamed possible. He keeps a vast entourage near him, travels "officially" at the drop of a hat in the most costly way, continues to subsidize his business buddies, and is, of course, a multi-millionaire in any case. What an example!

I wish I could have taken more time to quench your curiosity, but thanks for the opportunity none-the-less.

> 110

I couldn't disagree more. - On just about everything you said. But I am sure you mean well and are sincere.

Have a nice day.

--111 Not sincere so much as convinced.

And I feel certain you could disagree much more if you were to strenuously try. You could, for instance, tell us what you really think about Allen West.

The drone program is fine, if all you want to do is kill people who can later be designated as terrorists (or other undesirables). It is easy, seems to satisfy many voters, and makes it look like the government is actually doing something about the problem of terrorism. Of course, it does none of these things in reality, and merely creates more problems...none of which will have to be dealt with by the current or prior Administrations, making it even more ideal.

I'd like to see more than a blanket statement that switching how the government pays for medical care will somehow increase costs. (Yes, the government does that right now, prior to the AC law, and it is expensive, both in the short and long run. But it does help business, which I guess is good...)

You can have better gun regulation and lawful gun ownership. Many politicians tend to support laws passed in hysteria and then regretted in leisure, though.

Drug laws fall under the sumptery law category, and are as effective as all such laws have been throughout history. Whether it's fashion or consumption, behavior that does not directly impinge upon others has never been popular or helpful, and generates tremendous amounts of official corruption. Legalization is not without its own drawbacks, but I feel that those problems are more manageable.

The reaction of some to a black person running on the republican ticket is understandable, if regrettable. Since blacks are allowed to be in the G.O.P. as long as they use the kitchen entrance and don't upset the important people, black candidates are seen as promoting their own self-interest at the expense of their own pride.

As far as being a President, Obama is pretty much what we should have expected; a loyal servant of some special interests at the expense of the average citizen. A Republican President might have been worse, but unlikely to have been any better.

Right about the drones, though you might mention that a US subject to international law would be sending the perpetrators to The Hague.
A competing government run health insurance was the only good idea I recall, though it was never seriously considered.
The gun laws are already gutted.
Bravo on the drug laws and teaching me 'sumptery law'.
Obama isn't first in line for The Hague, but is certainly in line.

> 112 "...tell us what you really think about Allen West."

You mean the crazier-than-batshit Quisling Allen West?

BTW, back in WWI and WWII those people in the U.S. who whined about how the government was killing innocent people with all their bombing in foreign countries were considered traitors and thrown in jail.

>116 JGL53: and?

> 117 "..and?"

Q.E.D.

#116

A more sophisticated ruling class, which better understands that tolerating useless dissent does not threaten them; but cracking down on that dissent can generate more capable, more threatening dissent. At least, that is my explanation for the difference.

118> Indeed, if you are talking to yourself.

All of you (and I think you know who I mean) are just too good for this world. It's nice that one day you will receive your reward.

Many people on this and another thread, and it heartens me, have expressed disgust with policies that impoverished many and; in addition to the drones, the policy of suborning of death squads, which both have killed incredible numbers of innocent people. Many here, certainly not all, for Q.E.D. (properly used) if all then you would KNOW we know who you mean, simply are appalled at US foreign policy and the savageries committed during the reign of Thatcher. In addition, the situation with health care in the US negates human community in any real sense.
You seem to be implying that some of us, certainly me, as I abhor the criminal actions of the US (criminal in what has become known generally as committing 'crimes against humanity') and whine as often and loud as I can against the US bombing civilians, belong in jail. Alas, the US so sickened me that I chose to leave, but perhaps one day, if you are lucky, I will be as afraid to fly into the US as, for example, Kissinger is afraid to fly out of it.

^

Like I said.

122
If I were younger, I seriously would consider relocating my self. I believe it won't be long before our young people will be looking for opportunity outside of this country. They are not as uninformed as we were. The Internet has changed all that. As a young person I was taught that what we had here was "the best". I would say that it depends on one's priorities. For years I've fought the direction of our society and was told repeatedly that I could not get off the "hamster wheel". That is a sorry fact.....not here. Don't know if anything better exists but if I were young, I would certainly look.

> 124

I've day-dreamed for years about moving and living somewhere else other than the United States of Jesus.

Especially Portland, Oregon - or Asheville, N.C.

I don't care what color the bastich is. The fact that he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare says a lot more about him as a person than the fact that he's black -- or green -- or any other color.

He's no good for the country OR the Democratic Party and the sooner the Democrats figure that out, the sooner they'll turn on him.

Bad news. North Carolina has entered the race to the bottom. The people may not be as crazy there, but the politicians are.

Arctic-Stranger, are you referring by their attempt to establish a state religion in direct opposition to the Constitution? That one was fun, especially when the bill's sponsors started backpedalling after learning of all the implications.

Asheville is nice, though. If you go, I can recommend a good independent bookstore and a cafe serving local food.

>127 Arctic-Stranger: My new theory is that they are all on meth.

126> What would *you* do about Social Security then?

Who came up with the strange theory that "government" is paying for anything? A bit like offering Robin Hood charitable tax deductions, I'd say. Last time I checked (well, next Monday, actually) I was still paying taxes directly, indirectly and via inflation.

#128 yes. pretty much. I am a native Tar Heel. (The state, not the university, although I did do graduate work at Chapel Hill. I consider myself a Blue Devil.)

> 130 -- jjwilson61 -- I'd adopt the obvious solution: I'd shut down the wars of aggression, bring the troops home, tax the rich, cut the defense budget in half, at least. If the U.S. did only those things, there'd be no need to cut SS and Medicare. Then I'd put everybody to work building a high-speed rail system and a new energy grid. That ought to keep us all busy for the next five or ten years -- long enough for our brightest young people to figure out what we'll do after that.

I'd live in that country, dekesolomon.

While we are imagining utopias I'd like to live in a country where there is superabundance and everyone had everything they wanted all the time and nobody was ever unhappy.

Obviously the only things standing between us and that wonderful future are democrats and republicans. Why do we keep electing them? No more voting. That's the obvious answer.

>133 dekesolomon: All practical and decent given a practical and decent government and an energized public.

134
So would I ! Seems quite easy doesn't it ? I would say the only thing standing between us and that wonderful future is the strong hold of big money. Quetions is this : Are there any people left who could not be bought ?
As far as an energized public.... The upper class is doing it's best to make sure that the middle class is too worn out to have the energy to institute change and the lower class is not educated enough to understand hoe energizing could be of benefit.

134> I think the projections are that even doing all those things to cut the budget in other areas the size of the Social Security problem just swamps that effort. Yet relatively modest cuts go a long ways to ease the problem.

138, 137 > jjwilson61, faceinbook -- The problem with you guys is that you can't let go of what is.

Wilson forgets that the people who make the projections are the same people who lie to us all day, every day. More than that, his thinking is irrational: "Modest cuts (in SS) go a long ways to ease the problem." But chopping 50 percent of the defense budget won't help?

Faceinbook -- "The only thing standing between us and that wonderful future is the strong hold of big money." So we should wait to break the hold of money until we find someone who can't be bought? He forgets that all men are mortal. So he's waiting for the Second Coming before he moves to solve the problem. And if we wait for Jesus to save us, then there's no point in talking about doing anything for ourselves.

Running a government is like tending a garden. Corruption is like weeds. You can't kill ALL the weeds at once. What you can do is minimize the damage they cause if you cut them back once a week.

'...the projections...' struck me as well. No one I trust makes those projections.

No, just that I'm reporting the gist of what I remember of many news articles over the last 20 years. I was hoping someone with a better memory than I would step up and fill in the gaps. I guess not.

#139

It's not a government; it's an attitude.

Take
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/dan-loeb-simultaneously-soli...

for instance. I doubt that Loeb thinks that what he is doing is wrong. He clearly knows that other people may think it is wrong; but he doesn't care about the opinions of others. This works for him, so it's what should happen. And this is the exact type of attitude we see in many elected/entitled leaders. What's going on works for them; so it's fine. They genuinely see no reason for change.

> 142 -- BruceCoulson -- Jon Ronson calls them psychopaths and I believe that in doing so he is often correct. A great many of them belong behind bars, not just for what they've already done but mostly for what they will do if they're not locked up.

> 141 -- jjwilson61 -- We're back again to what you remember from the news these last 20 years. You need to let go of that stuff because the news has been systematically lying to our nation ever since the Kennedy assassinations and the start of the Vietnam War. Got that? Everything you heard about Wall Street and Uncle Sam in the news during the span of your life is a lie. Get your head around that and you'll start to see the true size of the problem.

More than that, his thinking is irrational: "Modest cuts (in SS) go a long ways to ease the problem." But chopping 50 percent of the defense budget won't help?

Probably not as much as you'd think. The federal government spends a little less than 20% of its annual spending on defense and "defense related" things (like intelligence, homeland security, and so on). Chopping the defense budget in half would reduce federal spending by something less than 10%.

That wouldn't help that much, since the deficit is more than 30% of the size of the federal budget, so cutting 10% of federal spending will still leave you with a deficit of about 20%. On the other hand, entitlement spending makes up more than 50% of annual federal spending, and grows on an annual basis (due to the demographics of the population), so making modest cuts there to slow the growth of entitlement spending and scale it back by a moderate amount would actually be efficacious.

The brutal truth is that everyone in Washington D.C. knows what has to be done in order to balance the federal budget, but nobody whats to bite the bullet and do them. The government needs to (1) cut the defense budget, (2) increase the retirement age, (3) means test social security benefits, (4) remove the cap of social security taxes, and (5) raise taxes. Do these five things, and the budget will be balanced.

> 144 -- Now we're balancing the budget? I thought we were trying not to cut Social Security.

I'm also interested to hear that the deficit is only 30 percent of the federal budget. Last I knew, the national debt was $16 trillion and growing rapidly. Confronted with those numbers I thought the very concept of a budget deficit was ludicrous. Then there's the $225 trillion in bad bets on derivatives that Wall Street wants taxpayers to cover -- and you wanna balance the federal budget?

I've heard of bad acid in my life, but the stuff you seem to have eaten would score big on the Richter scale.

Like 'Ownership' of private property debt is artifice.

'I've heard of bad acid in my life, but the stuff you seem to have eaten would score big on the Richter scale.'

is that a belching/farting metaphor? does acid lead to farting? does belching in our vernacular associate more with smell or raucousness?

Now we're balancing the budget? I thought we were trying not to cut Social Security.

Unless the budget is dealt with, there won't be social security to worry about.

I'm also interested to hear that the deficit is only 30 percent of the federal budget. Last I knew, the national debt was $16 trillion and growing rapidly.

The debt and the deficit are two different things. If you don't know what the difference is then you don't understand enough to even begin to participate in a conversation about social security, the federal budget, or pretty much anything involving government.

I've heard of bad acid in my life, but the stuff you seem to have eaten would score big on the Richter scale.

It's called "education". You might want to try it some time.

143> You need to let go of that stuff because the news has been systematically lying to our nation ever since the Kennedy assassinations and the start of the Vietnam War.

I believe that Fox News has been lying to me, but the chance of every single one of the other news sources from the LA Times to NPR has been lying to me, and not only lying to me but coordinated lying so that they all have similar stories, is pretty slim. I mean you have to take everything you hear with some measure of skepticism, but if you believe that they're all lying to you then you'd believe that Roswell is a gov't coverup and Neil Armstrong didn't really land on the moon.

I think we can accommodate everyone here: Armstrong crashed in Roswell, they through out the time machine, and cameras caught a young Saddam Hussein stashing weapons on the moon.

> 146 -- "acid" (i.e.: LSD) leads to hallucinations.

Thanks, now I know it was strange. you'd have to be on hallucinogens to link try to keep LSD and an earthquake in the same ballpark.

(kids are watching Marx brothers: Groucho just said: Scaravelli, you've got the mind of a five year old kid and I bet he was glad to get rid of it.)

> 147 -- StormRaven -- Well, I only have a master's degree in magazine journalism from one of the top J-schools in the country, so you're right: I probably wouldn't know if journalism has been lying to us or not.

> 148 -- jjwilson61 -- You're right when you say it seems incredible that all those people are lying to you. That's precisely why they've been able to lie to you as they have.

I've always believed that Neil Armstrong really did walk on the moon.

The jury on Roswell is still out, as far as I can tell: Either the government is lying or they're telling the truth but have some incredibly stupid people working press relations for them.

This country is better and more humane since the liberalism of the 1930s to the 1960s. It is less so since the conservatism of the 1980s and up to present. We've "Thatcherized" ourselves and the great recession of recent is our "great" result.

Obama, like Clinton, pushes against the wealth = power format only timidly at times but then EVERY Republican IS on "THEIR" side.

Personally I'd have voted for the Green or hey even Socialist Worker candydandydate IF it mattered a good goddam but Jill Stein (the Greenie) for instance wasn't even on my state's (Arizona's) ballot.

However I did vote for the US house of reps (who won!) one Kyrsten Sinema, a former Green then a Demo state legislator from central Phoenix -- also an "admitted" bisexual (ooooo!). She won but barely and interestingly she was dissed most by a Demo rival in the primary as being too cozy with some Repub legislators and even being "friendly" with the wild and woolheaded "Sheriff Joe."

Re the gun bills it'll be interesting to see how she votes though she'd be fine in Phoenix and northwest Tempe (where I live) but in posher Scottsdale where the Repubs are -- well! Still it's nice to see "them" on the run -- for now at least...

> 151 -- You've obviously never done any good LSD. Earthquakes are comparatively mild. . . .

The jury on Roswell is in--it was a Russian flyover. See Annie Jacobsen's AREA 51

> 147 -- StormRaven -- It isn't the deficit that's 30 percent of the federal budget. It's the interest on the deficit that is (in your own words) "more than 30% of the size of the federal budget."

Go back to school. Don't come back around here until they take away your pointy hat.

Isn't school the place where you GET the pointy hat?

> 155 -- RickHarsch -- Uh, I think I'll skip that one, Rick. The latest Dick & Jane novel just came in the mail. . . .

> 157 -- RickHarsch -- Yup. And that's why those who have pointy hats have to go back to school to get the hats removed.

158--Nothing like a good open mind: did you get that from the lobotomy?

A lobotomy won't leave you with an open mind. The doctors always sew the hole shut.

You've checked?

Have we hit the wall here? If we're gonna talk about Roswell oughtn't we get Chip involved?...

> 163 -- Michael_Welch -- "Chip"? You mean the youngest of Fred McMurray's "My Three Sons"?

> 162 -- RickHarsch -- No need for me to check. I'm not one of those who listens to mainstream newscasts hoping to find a solution to real-world problems.

163 I've read into the book enough to get the take on Roswell. It seems 'something' really happened, and it also seems a very good bet that what was kept from the US public was that the Soviets were experimenting with what I would guess was their version of a spying vehicle (they had their own ex-Nazi experts).

No -- THE "Chip" and THE Rick knows well! (Still maybe it IS time for Fred, as "Dad," to intervene?...)

> 166 -- RickHarsch -- Where did the author get that info? Is that some more of the stuff that came out of the Soviet archives after the crash of the Soviet system?

> 167 -- In plain English, please?

It isn't the deficit that's 30 percent of the federal budget. It's the interest on the deficit that is (in your own words) "more than 30% of the size of the federal budget."

No, it isn't. The debt and the deficit are different things, as I said before, but which you seem to be unaware of. The fact that you don't know this reveals that you are completely out of your depth.

The deficit is the amount by which the government overspends this year. Currently the federal government generally takes in about $2 trillion in revenues, and spends about $3 trillion in expenditures. The $1 trillion shortfall is the deficit.

The government has borrowed money for several years, and the money it has borrowed as a result of the deficit in each individual year becomes part of the debt. The debt is about $16.5 trillion right now. But as noted before, the debt is distinct from the deficit.

Balancing the budget would involve reducing the deficit to zero, not the debt (the U.S. government hasn't had zero debt since Andrew Jackson was President). The deficit is about 30% of the federal budget each year. Defense related spending makes up about 20% of federal expenditures, and entitlement spending makes up a little more than half of federal expenditures.

For the record, the interest on the debt amounts to about $220 billion a year right now, which is far less than 30% of the federal budget. Actually, it is a little less than 10%.

So at all points of this conversation, you have been wrong. That doesn't speak very well of your fact checking abilities as an alleged magazine journalist. Perhaps you should have spent more time studying how the government works rather than coming up with conspiracy theories.

> 170 -- StormRaven -- and the fact that you didn't know the difference between the deficit and the interest on the deficit is why I came at you the way I did (i.e.: debt instead of deficit). Read your initial post. You'll see it plain enough.

For the rest of it, what you believe is what you choose to believe based upon what you're heard and read. I believe differently because my sources are different.

Question: If everything I've said is wrong and everything you've said is correct, how did the country get into such a mess?

But never mind: I don't want to hear it before supper. After supper I'll be too busy. So just content yourself with being right about everything. I'm glad one of us is.

and the fact that you didn't know the difference between the deficit and the interest on the deficit is why I came at you the way I did (i.e.: debt instead of deficit). Read your initial post. You'll see it plain enough.

No, I didn't confuse them, and you're still talking out of your ass. The deficit is currently about 30% of the budget (i.e. the government has to borrow about 30% of what it spends each year).

Your harping on "the interest on the deficit" reveals that you still have no clue what "deficit" means. The deficit is not $16 trillion. The deficit is about $1 trillion. The total U.S. debt is $16 trillion, which is different.

The interest on the deficit is pretty small in relative terms - less than $15 billion in a year at best, and probably smaller because it is all new debt. The interest on the debt is currently about $220 billion a year, which, in a $3 trillion budget is far smaller than the 30% you claimed it to be.

For the rest of it, what you believe is what you choose to believe based upon what you're heard and read. I believe differently because my sources are different.

My sources are the public budgets produced by the government every year and voted into law, several thousand economists who have evaluated these budgets over the last several decades, and numerous historians who have written about it. Your sources are apparently the inside of your own ass.

If everything I've said is wrong and everything you've said is correct, how did the country get into such a mess?

You've been wrong about:

1. What the debt is.
2. The size of the debt.
3. The amount of interest on the debt.
4. What the deficit is.
5. How large the deficit is.
5. The amount of interest on the deficit.

Thus far, everything you've said about the federal budget has been wrong, and demonstrably so. How do you manage to work as a journalist with such shoddy fact checking skills?

>168 dekesolomon: Most of the sources in the book are interviews, I think. But there is also a lot taken from somewhat recently declassified material. I have no idea how accurate it all is. Let's say one jury is in.

> 172 -- StormRaven -- I don't work as a journalist. I'm retired and don't work at all. That's all you'll get from me here. I already conceded the argument. If you want more than that, you'll just have to take your problem down the street.

> 173 -- RickHarsch -- I'm not concerned enough to read the book. Maybe it was little green men who drink lots of vodka.

I wouldn't have been either, but something came up that required a lot of Nevada reading.

"Interest on the deficit" doesn't even make sense. You pay interest on debts, not deficits.

177: Yeah, deke appears to not even have the first clue of what he is talking about here. Its an interesting combination - complete ignorance combined with conspiranoia.

I don't work as a journalist. I'm retired and don't work at all.

Probably let go because you had trouble getting facts correct in your articles.

Good choice here though, to put your tail between your legs and run. Since you've pretty much demonstrated that you don't understand how the federal budget works.

> 177 -- jjwilson61 -- "Interest on the deficit" is what happens when you borrow money to pay interest on your debts, which is what Uncle Sam does year by year -- unless you think the money to pay appears out of thin air and disappears down a rat hole somewhere. The interest on $16 trillion would factor as a pretty big share of My household budget. But maybe you and Uncle Sugar make more money than I do.

> 178 -- StormRaven -- you haven't answered my question: "If everything I've said is wrong and everything you've said is correct, how did the country get into such a mess? Explain, if you can. Because you are right about everything, we'd love to know the explanation.

#179

To be fair (not that you have to be, of course) does anyone truly understand the federal budget? I suspect that many of those responsible for its passage every year have little better than a layman's grasp of the matter (which, given their additional responsibilities, isn't unreasonable). Add to that the number of items that are added as an afterthought, or concealed for reasons of 'security', and the confusion becomes understandable.

With that said, it is good to have at least a general overall grasp of the matter, and the difference between not paying your bills in a given year, as opposed to what you owe in toto.

"Interest on the deficit" is what happens when you borrow money to pay interest on your debts, which is what Uncle Sam does year by year.

No, it isn't. That's just interest on the debt. Which, as I noted, it far less then 30% of the budget. It is actually about 7% of the budget.

The interest on $16 trillion will factor as a pretty big share of My household budget. But maybe you and Uncle Sugar make more money than I do.

It will be relatively trivial, about 7% of your total taxes, and unless you are in the top 10% of income earners, that's a pretty small amount.

you haven't answered my question: "If everything I've said is wrong and everything you've said is correct, how did the country get into such a mess? Explain, if you can. Because you are right about everything, we'd love to know the explanation.

You haven't even demonstrated that you understand the basics of the federal budget to begin with. Why would you think you could understand any discussion about the federal budget under those circumstances? Thus far, all you've done is demonstrate that you are willing to opine on subjects you know nothing about.

You also haven't explained what you think the "mess" the country is in is either, so there's really no way to answer your question.

181: Understanding the details of each and every program and understanding the budget as a whole are different. I don't know how (for example) HHS is funded, how large its budget is, or the specific fiscal rules they operate under, but you don't need to understand that to understand how the budget of the overall federal government works.

To be fair to Deke, and contrary to Bruce's maxim I think at least you have to try to be, he seems rather new here and I have yet to 'determine' anything but that he's interesting (no pun intended.)

Here, everybody can have his own copy of the federal budget. If you don't like PDF's they'll sell it to you on paper.

Robert

184> Member since Sep 8, 2009

> 176 -- RickHarsch -- I wouldn't have thought there was anything in Nevada worth reading about. I get all my info on Area 51 from The History Channel. 8-)

Hey hey Nevada's INTERESTING! (Mark Twain thought so and gee never heard of Bugsy Siegel, Pat McCarren and Frank Sinatra?!!!...)

I'd certainly agree that the US taking on new debt of $224 trillion would bankrupt the country but I doubt anyone on Wall Street would want that to happen or that Congress is so suicidal as to let that happen. What's your source?

3:41 pm, Deke: 'But never mind: I don't want to hear it before supper. After supper I'll be too busy. So just content yourself with being right about everything. I'm glad one of us is.'

4:03 pm, Deke: 'That's all you'll get from me here. I already conceded the argument. If you want more than that, you'll just have to take your problem down the street.'

5:27 pm, Deke: 'So: if we're clear now on the fact that you've been rhetorically punked, then I hope we can hang up this particular phone. The jokes over. Go away and leave me alone.'

A picture emerges, a man in a Tom Waits song--I was right, he IS interesting...'if it's heads i go to tennessee, tails i buy a drink, and if it lands on the edge i keep talking to you...'

190> Very interesting. In addition to so much else, the most nuclearly bombed territory on the planet, I believe.

Following 190: The masters of the universe will remonetize things and float above the hyperinflation while the rest of us pay in advance because the price of our cup of coffee will rise as we drink it.

The price of gold has just plummeted and may continue to do so for a while. It may be a good time to buy and hoard.

Robert

With what cash?

There is that problem, isn't there? Timon of Athens found some in the woods, or was it gold itself that he found?

Robert

Mark Twain's Nevada was definitely interesting. I read "Roughing It" a couple years ago and was much impressed. It's the only thing he wrote that I enjoyed as much as "Life on the Mississippi."

Siegel and Sinatra I know about, but Nevada can't claim them because they're both New York natives.

McCarren is familiar to me only because I've seen signs for McCarren Boulevard somewhere out there while passing through Vegas.

I used to haul radioactive waste into the dump at Beatty. That's why my children all glow in the dark.

> 191 -- RickHarsch -- I gave 'em every chance. Instead of going away, they hung around and got vicious. Do unto others, I always say.

> 190 -- jjwilson61 -- what's my source? That's easy. You already know I'm a liar and you told me so to my face, so what are you worried about?

And by the way: Have you heard that Wall Street, acting through the U.S. government, plans to seize your bank deposits to cover their derivative losses?

Search Google News for Ellen Brown. Search Information Clearing House for Stephen Lendman.

At this point, its clear you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

You both have the solution to all our budget problems but you're completely unaware of it, viz.: I hinted at the solution away back down the line when I mentioned that the national debt is $16 trillion, onto which Wall Street wants to tack an additional $225 trillion in bad derivatives bets.

Except Wall Street doesn't want to do that, no matter what your conspiranoid fantasies tell you. Wall Street is interested in having markets, and economies that have fallen apart are not worthwhile markets. And they couldn't even if they wanted to.

Add those two numbers and the total is, uh, $241 trillion. That's the real problem.

The real problem is that you don't know the difference between public and private debt.

But you two want to come here and quibble over our paltry (by comparison) federal budget. You want to argue that a couple of hundred billion thrown here or there will make a difference, somehow bring a solution within our national reach. You believe in the numbers the government hands you -- even the $16 trillion -- and the bankers hand you -- $224 trillion --

At this point you stop making any sense at all.

but in light of that you don't see that the whole budget, the budgetary process, the White House, the Congress, the whole of the present U.S. government and all of Wall Street together are a meaningless, unimportant (if they are stupendous) joke.

They are far from meaningless, and if you knew anything about economics or how governments work, you'd know this. But you're too busy worrying about things like the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers to deal in reality.

That's what I've been driving at and that's why I don't concern myself with the niceties of budgets and budget negotiations, etc.

That's why your thoughts in this thread amount to nothing more than delusional ravings. Your inability to understand the federal budget doesn't mean it is meaningless.

I've been playing with you fellows to bring you to this point -- so I could point out to you that if you really believe the mainstream financial news (in light of what we know about the trillions) then you're both out of your cotton pickin' minds or you're sporting IQ scores in the single digits. Uncle Sugar and Wall Street and all the U.S. taxpayers and bank depositors together couldn't shit $241 trillion if they -- collectively -- ate a freight train load of Ex-Lax and washed it down with the entire national prune crop and all of the Pagan Pink Ripple in Ernest & Julio's basement.

They couldn't. And they won't, since no one is asking them to, and no one could make them do so. In addition to not understanding the federal budget, and not understanding the difference between public and private debts, I don't think you understand how financial markets work either.

The budget and the whole process are just one more sideshow for yahoos like you to quibble and snit about. If the show works as it's supposed to, you'll argue liberal v. conservative from now until the fall of 2014. Then you'll go back to the polls and elect another crop of Democrat/Republicans to office.

The fact that you don't understand the budget process, or how the government works, or how trading markets work may be the reason why you think it is "just a sideshow".

Thus the problem with our government and our economy and our politics is caused by dumshits like you two

ToS violation one. Also you spelled "dumbshit" wrong. Are you sure you were a journalist, or was that just a delusion on your part?

and will continue to be caused by dumshits like you

ToS violation two.

until you either die or get smart. For my part, I hope you drop dead soon because guys like you are not going to get any smarter if you live to be 200.

We may not get smarter, but at least we're still smarter than you appear to be.

So: if we're clear now on the fact that you've been rhetorically punked, then I hope we can hang up this particular phone. The jokes over. Go away and leave me alone.

The only person who has been "rhetorically punked" here is you. And you did it to yourself by exposing that you've got nothing but paranoid delusions, complete ignorance concerning all of the topics under discussion, and an inability to understand even the basics of economics.

> 199 -- StormRaven is raving.

Quoth the StormRaven "Except Wall Street doesn't want to do that, no matter what your conspiranoid fantasies tell you. Wall Street is interested in having markets, and economies that have fallen apart are not worthwhile markets. And they couldn't even if they wanted to."

So either you've got an inside track on what Wall Street wants, or you're a liar because you don't really know what Wall Street wants. Moreover, you can't possibly know, so it's certain that you're lying.

And I didn't spell "dumshit" wrong. I just wanted to make sure you could pronounce the word and I thought the "b" might confuse you.

what's my source? That's easy.

And he reveals his source: World News Daily. A bizarre and insane collection of paranoid conspiracy theorists who think the world is ending. It is also filled with misogynistic, racist, and homophobic asses.

There are few sources less credible than World News Daily.

So either you've got an inside track on what Wall Street wants, or you're a liar because you don't really know what Wall Street wants. Moreover, you can't possibly know, so it's certain that you're lying.

Wall Street wants to make money. This isn't that hard.

And I didn't spell "dumshit" wrong. I just wanted to make sure you could pronounce the word and I thought the "b" might confuse you.

Yeah, you did. And since you get your news from WND, I'm not surprised.

> 201 -- another lie. I never read World News Daily. That's where YOU found the article. That doesn't mean I got it there, and I didn't.

203: Now you don't know what sources you are reading from: the Information Clearing House is run by WND. This is right at the top of the site's page. Did you miss that?

Without worrying too much about the exact numbers, I will say that the pernicious 'too big to fail' doctrine (which is swiftly becoming the 'too big to jail'; cf the HSBC scandals) continued the bad precedents set in the 80s with the S&L and Chrysler bailouts.

In the capitalism which Wall Street praises but does not practice, businesses which fail to meet their obligations go under, to be replaced by other businesses that are more fiscally responsible; not saved by the taxpayer simply to fail again in another generation.

Well, Bruce, you know that was all BEFORE they got "too big to fail." Now that they don't have to worry about failure, they think they've got a license to steal. Of course SOME people still think that capitalism as practiced by Wall Street is the fount of all our freedoms.

I don't think I've seen someone burn their own credibility to the ground faster than deke has done on this thread.

198> You already know I'm a liar and you told me so to my face...

You have me and StormRaven confused. I never insulted you.

208: I never called him a liar either. I just pointed out that his fact-checking skills and understanding of basic economics are lacking.

Oh, I also pointed out that he can't spell.

Where was his face?

> 209 -- StormRaven -- what you said is that I was talking out of my ass. That means "liar" where I come from.

By the way, we're up to more than 200 posts here. I started another thread. If you're not done building castles in the air, why not do it over there and give this one a rest.

Those nuts at Alternet are onto it, too.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34557.htm
http://www.alternet.org/economy/think-your-money-safe-think-again-confiscation-s...
http://www.alternet.org/economy/cyprus-could-it-happen-here

But of course Ellen Brown is just another nut, right? That's why they invite her to lecture at Claremont McKenna College!

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/trillions-to-the-99-ellen-brown-explains-...

I've been following Ellen Brown for years, and I read her stuff wherever it pops up. It's always in alternative venues. The mainstream won't print her stuff. It's censorship, plain and simple.

Of course the media experts at LibraryThing (who have amassed a collection of more than 8,000 sci-fi fantasy books) disagree with me. I'm only a journalist after all.

"I mentioned that the national debt is $16 trillion, onto which Wall Street wants to tack an additional $225 trillion..."

"...because you don't really know what Wall Street wants. Moreover, you can't possibly know"

How is it impossible for him to know and possible for you to know, Mr Soloman?

The brutal truth is that everyone in Washington D.C. knows what has to be done in order to balance the federal budget, but nobody whats to bite the bullet and do them. The government needs to (1) cut the defense budget, (2) increase the retirement age, (3) means test social security benefits, (4) remove the cap of social security taxes, and (5) raise taxes. Do these five things, and the budget will be balanced.

Too bad Zuckerberg's fwd.us got hijacked by aliens to place 0) immigration, first.

The constituents who care about immigration are really the tail wagging the dog.

They are not even 47%. Get them to pay-off the debt & deficit with their taxes.

http://www.librarything.com/privacy

Freedom of discussion and personal attacks

* LibraryThing has no speech code. You can dispute ideas and words without limitation.
* LibraryThing prohibits personal attacks on members. As Wikipedia's policy states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Good advice

* Use common sense. Be polite. Think before you post.
* If you're upset by something or someone, try to calm down before responding.
* Discussions can become heated and passionate. Don't forget that the person on the other side is human.
* Remember that LibraryThing Talk is a public space; don't say anything to others that you wouldn't want a room full of people to overhear.
* Avoid quoting or otherwise exposing private communication. While this does not necessarily violate the Terms of Service, you should consider whether it qualifies as a personal attack or a disclosure of private information.
* Consider the context before posting. A political religious dispute does not belong in a knitting group.

How to deal with abuse

* If you come across an abusive post, click the "flag abuse" link. The flag will be visible only after it has been flagged twice. After four different users have flagged a post, it will be deleted.
* Please do not flag posts as "abuse" simply because you disagree with what is said, or if someone criticizes your favorite book, author, or idea—that's not abuse, it's a difference of opinion. We welcome differences of opinion!
* LibraryThing staff do not review all flags. Severe abuse should be reported to LibraryThing staff.

About the Social Security cuts, here's what William Greider has to say about them:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34588.htm

If you're a Democrat -- I'm not -- you might like this from John Nichols

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173724/23-million-petitioners-urge-rejection-chain...

From The Atlantic

Q: What day most changed the course of history?

W. Kamau Bell:

... the obvious answer is May 16, 1983, when Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk on TV. I think it’s one of the reasons we have a black president today.

The Lizard People who originally landed in Roswell are green.

The Illuminati control all international business and government and utterly manipulate and control all banks - and all money.

Money is green.

It's all beginning to make sense now.

Thanks, guys.

You totally forgot to mention the trilateral commission.

> 219

Ditto the Council on Foreign Relations, the Skull and Bones, the Masons, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, ConEd - it's all revealed in the Principia Discordia.

> 213 -- I guess you'll just have to hide and watch what happens in the next year or two.

I hope the stuff the progressives are predicting doesn't actually happen but we'll all find out by and by.

Mr Solomon, it beats what the Tea Party and other members of the Right are expecting. What is this longing for Armageddon?

What is this longing for Armageddon?

I don't know. I don't long for Armageddon.

Other folks are increasingly aware of the problems with mainstream journalism. You can't know current events if your "library" consists of more than 8,000 sci-fi fantasy novels and comic books.

http://www.alternet.org/media/propaganda-system-has-helped-create-permanent-over...

sighs if it is Only possible for you to know what Wall St thinks. you are just wasting our time.

Mr Solomon, are you really stating that a person who reads science fiction can't also read the news?

I know that's one of the far rights favorite mantras, that you can't trust the 'lamestream' media, but only our media. It's a winning business model, but doesn't have any basis in reality.

> 226 -- You didn't chase the links I sent or, if you did, you didn't read the articles. If you didn't read the articles, you can't reply to them intelligently. So why bother to reply at all?

The "lamestream media" is YOUR term. It's very trendy among a certain group of people, I know. But I always say "mainstream media" because that's what it is.

> 225 -- It isn't possible for ANYBODY to know what ANYBODY thinks if all a body reads is the mainstream media. I read the mainstream AND the alternative venues. Reading as widely as possible is the only way we can sort fact from fiction these days.

> the both of you -- Do you have any idea how many mainstream journalists have lost their jobs during the last 20 years? Do you have any idea what those downsized journalists are doing these days, now they can't get jobs in mainstream journalism any more and there aren't enough jobs of any kind to go around?

I'll tell you what those unemployed journalists are doing: many of the best of them are running Blogs. They do it because they're driven. Real journalism is like medicine or the ministry. It's not a profession so much as it's a calling.

You think every alternative source is some kind of radical source. You think that any article published on a non-traditional venue is some kind of wild-eyed conspiracy theory. You seem blissfully unaware that good, solid articles are widely published in all kinds of alternative venues. And all of that together points to the fact that you no longer know how to tell fact from fiction -- if in fact you ever did.

It was the late 80s when the new editor of the La Crosse Tribune, part of a profitable group of papers, stormed into the newsroom holding the day's paper, announcing: 'There are (about) 93 items in this paper. We need to get that up to (about) 130!'

>227 dekesolomon:
"But I always say "mainstream media" because that's what it is."

No sure exactly when the term "lame stream media" was coined but it was Ms Palin who repeated it and repeated it and repeated it. As far as I know Ms Palin is a representative of the Tea Party movement. No matter what you call the media, I think most would attribute it to her since she spewed the phrase over and over in such a charming way.

It is important to note that journalism is only as helpful as the education and /or open mindedness of those who are reading or listening. I am repeatedly amazed by how people interpret what they hear. My husband is a "hold your nose Republican" No matter what he listens to, he hears what he wants and he can be selectively deaf. EVEN when Fox News is splathering on about the lame stream media of the other channels, he will maintain that Fox News looks at other channels fairly and without bias.. The mental gymnastics are amazing.

Honestly. we can both watch the same new item from the same source and come away with completely different information. Sometimes have to ask him if his dang ears fell off of his head.

Sifting through information is an open minded process. It would seem to me that a large percentage of the Conservative Party closed their minds the day Obama took office. Since many Republican's are not known for their propensity to view things beyond the self...many of them have slammed the door on critical thinking as well.

>229 faceinbook: It is important to note that journalism is only as helpful as the education and /or open mindedness of those who are reading or listening.

I think there is serious pressure towards conformity on both the left and the right that is only exacerbated by the inclination to present your message in controllable talking points and sound bytes that can be easily tweeted. The medium flattens the message and cuts away any possibility of a serious discussion or appreciation of nuance or the complexity of the issues. I think the right is more blatant about this than the left at the moment, but both sides are guilty of it. As a culture, our approach towards news is fundamentally uncritical.

I take solace in the fact that to some extent people have always been this way. It is always easier to wear a label than make an argument. But it is the nature of politics that the pendulum never rests, it is always swinging.

> 229 -- every american should be required to read the link I posted in > 224.

I closed my mind to Obama when he announced that his running mate would be Joe Biden. In that moment I knew what would follow from it. NOTHING he's done since he took office has surprised me in the least.

Why? Because Joe Biden is America's dirty little secret. Joe Biden is the dog crap laid in the middle of the national living room thirty seconds before the doorbell rings to announce our guests for dinner. Not having time to clean up the mess and not wanting anybody to see it, we tossed a throw rug on it, hoping nobody would smell it on their way to the dining room. Now Obama has ripped away the throw rug and brought the dog crap in to dinner. He has introduced it to everybody at the table, same as if it were a real human being. Obama is proud of that crap because the dogs that own the crap, you see, are one big reason he (Obama) got to live in the White House.

For those who don't know it -- Biden is the property of the DuPont money that owns the state of Delaware. Wonder if or why corporations now govern America? Look no further than Joe Biden.

We've seen these and similar links before. World Net Daily and it's offshoots aren't reliable, although they are sometimes interesting. It's good Pat Buchanan has a job.

I would suggest amplifying your reading with foreign sources, if you aren't willing to trust any of the vast and diverse news sources of American origin. If the media is being controlled by the government, then it only makes sense to see what journalists and reporters in other countries are investigating. Der Speigel is interesting, as are Der Frankfurter Allgemeine and Le Monde and there are numerous newsites and blogs to be found outside of the American bubble.

> 232 -- Don't talk to me about the vast and diverse news sources of American origin. If you chased AND READ the link I sent in > 224, you'd know better.

I listen to RT almost every day. I used to read the Moscow Times before they laid off my favorite columnist. He is an expat named is Chris Floyd and you can find him at his blog: Empire Burlesque. He also has a weekly column in the print version of Counterpunch.

Again, it can be useful to read non-American sources. American expats writing from interesting places is not without value, but it hardly gives you an international view.

> 234 -- I never said I had an "international view". I never said I aspire to "an international view". If you travel that's nice for you; if you speak foreign languages, why, that's nice for you too. But if you read that link I sent in > 224, you might be qualified to criticize it.

> 232 -- Being accustomed to the ways of the Blogosphere, I pay more attention to WHO wrote the article than to WHERE it appears. The article I cited from World News Daily > 224 also appears on Alternet and at Huffington Post and it originates in a Canadian venue. Alternet is a well-respected source. My experience with Arianna Huffington leads me to conclude that HuffPo is reliable UNLESS led astray by Arianna's lust for Hollywood celebrities (e.g. George Clooney). Arianna is an airhead but she's got some good people working for her.

244: That is the most idiotic statement I've seen today. Good job.

Of course, if you'd actually looked at my library, you'd note a lot of material other than science fiction and fantasy. But, you know, you can only read one kind of book.

Good job linking to a piece of conspiracy theory propagandizing too. That'll help your credibility.

> 236 -- "if you'd actually looked at my library, you'd note a lot of material other than science fiction and fantasy."

You're right. I also saw thousands of comic books.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about? You mean the history of the U.S. propaganda machine? It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the plain truth. That Canadian article just condenses the history of US information management that we got in grad school.

Having waded through that somewhat bloated article, I don't think it proved your point that the news is not to be trusted.

Yes, capitalism is viewed in this country like the unassailable, unquestionable good, and there's been a strong push to have unions and consumer protection groups labeled as the reason for all economic woes, but there's substantial and widespread push-back against that. The media is simply too large and diverse to be easily controlled by guys with lots of money.

It's a good idea to read from a variety of sources, and some of them should be non-American. I'd suggest the British press, who write in English and see the US from an different angle than we do. It's helpful.

But assuming that someone isn't able to be up on current events or international affairs simply because they own several books in a genre you may not personally enjoy is silly. Why that would be like looking at a catalog of well under a thousand books and deciding that the catalog's owner must be semi-literate. It doesn't work that way.

I also saw thousands of comic books.

Then you weren't looking at my library. But then again, your research skills have been shown to be sorely lacking.

On the other hand, you failed to note the 235 history books in my library. One who was making comparisons might note that this is almost ten times as many as you have. You also missed the 70 books about law. The 38 economics books. The 18 political science books. I probably have more nonfiction books in my library than you have books period.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about?

"The media can't be trusted! Because, capitalism!"

Using a media article as evidence that the media is all lying to you is a bit ironic too.

Watching you flush your credibility down the drain is fascinating.

Are we going to finally get to the point where StormRaven must provide evidence that his library is real?

240: I have pictures, if you need them. :)

How easy is it to scrawl new labels and tape them to the spines. Pictures indeed!

242: You caught me. Every book I own is a duplicate copy of They'd Rather Be Right with a false homemade dust jacket.

#243

Wayyyy too much work there, Storm. You can buy very nice faux dust jackets at a quite reasonable price. No one is likely to notice that you have 5 copies of "The Necronomicon for Dummies" on your shelves.

244: But everyone would recognize the commercial faux dust jackets.

#245

Not if you got older ones...but I lack any book-binding skills, so I should defer to your superior expertise.

> 243 -- It's nice of you to finally admit it.

> 239 -- StormRaven -- "On the other hand, you failed to note the 235 history books in my library. One who was making comparisons might note that this is almost ten times as many as you have. You also missed the 70 books about law. The 38 economics books. The 18 political science books. I probably have more nonfiction books in my library than you have books period."

Now if you'd only READ some of them, they might help you. I'm not sure of that, though, because none of them are about journalism, per se. I didn't see any about communication theory or controls of information, either. Don't have anything about Lippmann, or Frank Stanton, or Ed Murrow, or William Paley either, I'll bet.

Based upon your "library" (and what you CLAIM is in your library), you don't know anything about journalism or communication theory or controls of information. It's about time you admit that, too.

This is getting spooky: checking out libraries to make what point? Most of the books I've read in my life are not in my library, and at least half the books I have laying around, probably far more, are not 'in my library'. I enjoyed a biography of Lippman, but it was not returned when I lent it out some twenty years ago (Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Steele?). So SR knows nothing about journalism, etc. This is far more creepy than ugly.

I know a giant fuckload about P.G. Wodehouse and Albert Payson Terhune. Because of these facts I look down on the poor souls who are unfamiliar. I'm just saying.

248: I've read most of them. Far more of the nonfiction than the science fiction. Of course, I'm not boasting about how I bought twenty-eight books in my first semester of college. I'd be kind of embarrassed by such a small number.

I have Lippmann, and read him. I thought he was okay, but Aron was much better political science. I found Arendt and Gide better too. I'm kind of amused at how lightweight the authors your cited actually are.

Based upon your performance here and your library, you don't know much of anything.

# 250 (giant fuckload, love it) What do you make of Wodehouse's radio broadcasts during WWII? I know some thought him merely a political innocent, but...

> 251 -- StormRaven -- "I have Lippmann, and read him. I thought he was okay, but Aron was much better political science. I found Arendt and Gide better too. I'm kind of amused at how lightweight the authors your cited actually are."

Which authors did I cite?

I named Frank Stanton, William Paley, et al. as subjects -- not as authors.

Again -- the story from ICH that I cited concerns matters of known fact. We had that stuff in controls of information classes. Got that? They teach it in graduate schools, but you won't even look at it even though it's a major part of the history of the profession. Same with the people I named. You evidently think you know Lippmann, but you evidently don't know the least thing about Lippmann.

You better stay with the sci-fi and the comic books.

250> I think Wodehouse lacked the bloody mindedness we call moral courage and I do not blame him for that lack one iota.

Mr Solomon, please attack issues and not people. It makes you look desperate and without actual arguments in favor of your position. Which is what, exactly? I read the potted and somewhat bloated history of propaganda that you posted without taking the time to post your own thoughts on the subject. I replied to what it was saying. You failed to agree, disagree or modify what I said, but instead poked fun at someone with a much, much larger library than your own. What is your point? Is it that you think science fiction sucks? Or that you don't know what to say, so you'll fling ill-thought-through insults around in the hopes of derailing the conversation? Can we take it as clear that StormRaven is utterly embarrassed by your cutting words so that we can return to figuring out what you're saying?

I named Frank Stanton, William Paley, et al. as subjects

Pretty lightweight subjects.

Again -- the story from ICH that I cited concerns matters of known fact.

The story you cited was virtually content free bloviating. Which describes most of your posts, so I shouldn't be surprised that you put so much stock in it.

They teach it in graduate schools, but you won't even look at it even though it's a major part of the history of the profession.

I looked at it. I read it. It was unimpressive. Got it? Pay a little attention and you'll note that most of the people here have been to graduate school. Many are more educated than you. Perhaps you are used to awing people with your M.A., but that's pretty much small potatoes on LT.

(For the record, many science fiction authors are more educated than you as well. Take your blather to someone like David Brin, Stephen Baxter, or Catherine Asaro and see how far you get).

You evidently think you know Lippmann, but you evidently don't know the least thing about Lippmann.

Lippmann's work was superficial at best.

You evidently think you know about reality, but you evidently don't know the least thing about reality. You're busy living in the paranoid fantasy world that you feel comfortable in.

I'll just go back to reading works of actual substance: history, economics, science, political science, and law. You can go back to your crackpot conspiracy theories.

Wow, I came here to say basically what RG just said.

'You better stay with the sci-fi and the comic books.' This is unnecessary. And I think our flawed but decent leader, Spalding, has made a good case nearby that this group is degenerating. I have contributed my share to this degeneration, but it really is time to stop.

As for your argument vis a vis by or about Lippman, Paley, and so on. I also remember that I read a fat Halberstam book on the media that is not in my library right now. I think it is a waste of time to check each others' libraries and a further waste to report back on these investigations.
I have Gibbon in my library but still haven't read every word (after many years). I have three books by Sumption on the hundred years war and am still in the 200s of the first volume. If anyone looks carefully at my library, they will see that I am a veritable expert on historical matters. I am not. I am an amateur. I wrote a brief maritime history, but there is much in there I have forgotten.

(By the way, Sumption's initials are NOT A.S.)

> 255 -- Ridgeway Girl -- I read your > 238. I didn't reply because I found it unconvincing. I don't believe you read the article. If you did, you wouldn't be able to deny what it says because what it says is factual.

> 257 -- Rick Harsch -- Halberstam is not good journalism. His book is history-as-rumor. He drops names and tells stories but no sources are cited. There isn't a single footnote in the whole thing, no sources are given. Nothing he says can be confirmed. That's because the only way Halberstam could get those people to talk to him is to present his "evidence" as hearsay. I have to admit I enjoyed the book a great deal. There are some juicy stories in it and Halberstam is a fine writer. If that book was worth a hoot, it would work as confirmation for much of what I've said here. But it doesn't because it isn't.

I find it hilarious that dk is so obsessed with the "comic books" in my collection. Between graphic novels and comic strip collections (comprised mostly of Far Side, Dilbert, and For Better or for Worse collections), "comic books" make up about 2% of my library.

And given that the graphic novels I have include works such as Persepolis, and Maus II, pretending that their presence is somehow an indication of a less than serious library just shows the speaker to be clueless and uneducated.

Then again, dk has demonstrated time and again in this thread that he doesn't actually bother to do any research or make sure he knows what he is talking about before he starts writing. If there is a problem with the news media, dk's lack of fact checking skill are a clear indication why.

dk's posts sound like those of a small child talking to adults. He is out of his depth, but he simply doesn't know enough to understand why.

> 258 Believe what you want. I asked you what you thought and you don't know, which is, I guess, fine. Asking people to read an article and then refusing to talk about it in favor trying to make fun of someone shows that you don't know what you want to say. If you'd like to go make fun of my books now, instead of arguing an issue, go for it. I'll offer to be really hurt and cry a little, if it makes you feel like you won the argument you're unwilling to make or even explain in vague terms.

Thank you, Mr Solomon, for clearly debating a topic rather than descending into insults.

Do I need to point out that I was using sarcasm?

At this point I'll take anything I can get.

263: Apparently what electing a black president does is reduce dk to posting incoherent rants and renders him unable to explain what he thinks his own links mean.

As to the article he puts so much stock in - L. Ron Hubbard would have been proud to write up a conspiracy theory so insane. Reading the comments on the article is amusing. It is a collection of rants by 9/11 "truthers", people claiming Obama is the antiChrist, or that the CIA is behind everything, and pretty much every other lunatic fringe theory out there. No wonder dk finds it so convincing.

StormRaven, I've found that, with a few exceptions, that to read the comment section of almost any political commentary is a depressing and disheartening exercise.

I have flagged 262 because of ' You are a liar.' To me that is as directly grotesque as it gets in this type of forum, and in this case it is also badly misplaced. I know I have claimed to be a non-flagger, for the most part, but this one deserves it.

Sez who?

Says me. I read his work, and compared to other political and social analysts, his work is facile and superficial. I have to wonder about the quality of your education that you don't realize this.

You don't know the least thing about Lippmann, which is why you try to dismiss him that way. You are a liar.

You may want to consult the TOS. But that would require the ability to do basic research, which you have proven unable to do thus far.

For the rest of it, you SHOULD read works of actual substance instead of sci-fi novels and comic books.

If you want to understand the twentieth century, one has to understand the literature of the twentieth century. And much of that literature is science fiction. But that concept seems to be beyond you.

Read Persepolis. Then get back to me about substance. Then again, I figure that the themes of a Dr. Seuss book would sail over your head.

You keep asserting that the article you cited is "factual". In the broadest sense it includes facts, but it mixes them together into a conspiracy theory soup that is pure nonsense. And you think it is somehow convincing, which is an indication that you have a hard time telling fact from fiction.

Yes, Ronald Steele's Walter Lipmann and the American Century. I thought it excellent some 30 years ago when it first came out. Was Lipmann or Lippman or Lippmann a great journalist? Well, he was important at the time, a sort of George Will, though in a less degraded era.

The funny thing is, this sort of conspiranoia isn't new. If you study the economic history of the nineteenth century, and the reporting on it, one will note the terrible panic stricken articles that were engendered, almost all of which turned out to be wrong. Heck, William Jennings Bryan's two runs for President were built upon the premise that 'free silver" would solve the economic woes of the nation, a premise that in hindsight seems to be patently false.

Tim is fond of using the quote "to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant" (which I think should be amended to "to be deep in history is to cease being a theist"), but I would say that it is also true that "to be deep in history and economics is to see that conspiracy bullshit is now, and has always been, bullshit".

Members are advised to avoid violations of the Terms of Service. Calling someone stupid and calling them a liar are both violations of the Term of Service.

"Screeching and raving" -- yes that's apropos...