"Pledge to America" Unveiled by Republicans

[Woodruff]

As always, I don't hold Democrats blameless, but the Republicans lead the charge.

U R FNNY.

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.

Yes, they have certainly been honest. Particularly in light of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. I've been very impressed with what the liberals have done on that front.

[Phatscotty]

expanded and extended it.

[PLAYER57832]

As always, I don't hold Democrats blameless, but the Republicans lead the charge.

U R FNNY.

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.

Yes, they have certainly been honest. Particularly in light of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. I've been very impressed with what the liberals have done on that front.

Are you somehow mistaking Democrats with liberals? Because there has been plenty on this in places like Alternative Radio.

Per the Democrats... I have said all along that there is plenty I don't like about the Obama administration. Its just that even with the failings, it still FAR surpasses the Bush administration overall. Right now, all people seem to care about is the economy. The rest is not going to get better until the economy gets better, because people who feel threatened want scapegoats, not hard truths. Facing the realities you mention requires facing hard truths.

Right now, we have a choice between a return to McCarthyism, combined with a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900's OR The Democrats. Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not evil.

[PLAYER57832]

For the most part, I judge politicians individually, and then just those for whom I can vote or have other contact. ( a few, like Pallin make themselves known to all)

Overall, its not that I really like the Democrats or what they are putting forwrd. (too weak, too little of anything) Its just that I absolute do NOT like the Republicans. And that is actually more about how they do things than their policies. Their policies are bad, but I blame the Republicans for the absolute slide and the utter partisanship. They too often act the bully who either gets to set the rules or stomps out

I can respect differing views. I may not agree, but I can respect them. I don't respect AT ALL this recent attitude that "either they agree with us or they are socialist", etc. And I do feel the Republicans, though not the sole purveyors, are the worst in that, have absolutely worked to use that mentality and create it to their benefit. All politicians have done it to a point, but there was time when folks could at least be civil in political discourse.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Republicans for not siding on some of the Democrat's bills, but the Democratic Party should take into further consideration the Republican Party's views on more bills instead of just ignoring them outright, putting up a bill that doesn't represent anything the Republicans find acceptable, and then complaining about the Republican Party shooting them down. .

The irony is that the original health care bill, the "big baddie" of the Republican party right now, actually DID very much borrow from ideas the Republicans put forward not so long before.

There are many other examples.

No, I don't hold the Democrats blameless (take to long to get into all that), but it absolutely HAS BEEN the Republican party that is doing most of the "stomping off". Furthermore, there is a well -documented pattern, going back to before Reagan, (though it began to really take hold with Reagan) of altering the way people talk about things so that everything is framed to benefit them.

I'd really have to see numbers to be persuaded to your view.

Here are a few good speeches on the topic:

The Political Mind by George Lakoff http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/LAKG002.shtml
It is abundantly clear that if you control language, terms such as, war on terror, partial birth abortion, and death tax, you can shape ideas and dominate the discourse. You can put your opponents on the defensive. And once you do that, they are always reacting to your initiatives. People on the right have understood this dynamic very well. And they've done something about it. First, they built up a network of well-funded think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Then they created their own media such as Fox and Rush Limbaugh. Then they developed a golden rolodex of experts, attached to their think tanks, who constantly appear in the media to advance their ideological agenda. On the other side of the conventional political spectrum, it is not clear whether liberals sufficiently grasp the urgency of the issue.

Framing the Debate: Politics and Language By George Lakoff http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/LAKG001.shtml
Behind every catchy right-wing slogan, there are a set of facts that tell a different story. Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" has never been fully funded. The "Clear Skies Act" weakens mercury pollution control, poisoning our air. The "Healthy Forests Initiative" allows the lumber industry to plunder our forests.. And "The War on Terror," has failed to connect Iraq to 9/11. But research shows that most Americans do not cast their votes based on facts alone. Republicans have had great success in framing the debate. They know that values, identity and language matter. How can progressives use language more effectively to express their ideas? How can they re-frame the debate?

The politics of Family Values: http://www.alternativeradio.org/program ... R001.shtml
"Family values" is a political football thrown all over the field. It's a rich vein of rhetoric mined by poiticians who can't seem to finish a paragraph without denouncing "deadbeat dads" and "welfare moms." What are the underlying impulses that drive both Democrats and Republicans in making family values such a contentious issue? How do worsening economic conditions affect families? These are some of the topics addressed in this important program.

Money or Life By David Korten
"They strutted up and down the avenue, throwing out their chests and bidding the world stand to one side. They were 100 percent American big businessmen who took back talk from nobody. Now they take a handout wherever they can get it. Billions will be ladled into the mouths of these very individualistic big businessmen who, five years ago, were yelling their heads off about 'No government interference with business.' Now, they have put both feet in the public treasury trough and are yelling their heads off for government funds." Could be today's headlines, right? Not quite. It's from the "Progressive" magazine in 1934. History is instructive. The current meltdown could be seized as an opportunity to fundamentally alter our economy rather than restoring the unsustainable status quo ante with a few cosmetic changes. We can choose. Money or Life?


The hypcrisies of Capiralism http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/PARM028.shtml
The "Newsweek" cover declares, "We are All Socialists Now." Some people have a different take on it. Paul Krugman, commenting on the bailout of banks and the giant insurance company AIG, says it's a classic example of what he calls "lemon socialism," that is, taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right. Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, is describing our economic system as it really is, not the fantasy tale spun for mass consumption by Alan Greenspan and his disciples. One salient aspect of the economic collapse is the focus on rotten apples like Bernard Madoff and Robert Allen Stanford. They are easy pickings. We can all be virtuous in denouncing them as cheats and swindlers. But what escapes scrutiny and discussion is the barrel itself. And that is the capitalist system.
The shock Doctrine
Catastrophes from Katrina to Iraq from Afghanistan to the Asian Tsunami clear the way for corporations to move in and operate in newly privatized zones, pushing local government overboard. Kind of like shock and awe economics. Privatize, privatize, privatize is intoned like a mantra by the economic high priests of neoliberalism. The belief in the so-called free market is almost akin religious dogma. Abuses, shoddy work and rampant profiteering rule with little or no oversight or accountability. Governments sub-contract and outsource their essential functions and services as jobs float downstream from the public sector into the private. Free market neoliberalism is synonymous with democracy and since everyone loves the latter what's not to like about the former? But what it really is, is a get rich quick crusade.
Renewing the American Experiment By David Korten
It may seem odd to many to think of the establishment of this country as an experiment, but in many ways it was just that: a very bold experiment. Never before had the issues of equality, justice and liberty been addressed for its citizenry in quite the same way. Some of the concerns of the people may have changed over time, but we are still interested in the basic issues that have brought people to this land: freedom from tyranny and the opportunity for a quality of life not based upon social class or family ties.We are at a critical juncture in history where the ruling and corporate elite are only too eager to roll back nearly 200 years of progress. What are we, with limited resources and access to media or power, to do? David Korten has examined our history and how we've gotten where we are and he has some ideas about how we can take back our country.

The World Bank, 50 years is enough
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund together have more power to influence development in the Third World than do any other institutions on the planet. For the last fifty years, tens of billions of dollars have been loaned to the poorest nations with the ostensible purpose of improving their quality of life. The net result, in most cases, has been disastrous. World Bank and IMF practices often usurp local development priorities. Staggering levels of debt burden countries already poor. The gulf between the privileged few and those clinging to survival has widened. World Bank projects and IMF-imposed structural adjustment programs displace millions of people and devastate the environment. Lecture, interview


Report from the Global Factory by Charlie Kernaghan
More and more U.S.-based corporations are "outsourcing" their production. The new sites of the global factory are in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Haiti, El Salvador and Mexico. Clothing, shoes, toys and sporting goods are often made by youngsters working in sweatshops, where wages are inadequate, hours are long and working conditions endanger safety and health. In this compelling and amusing presentation, Charlie Kernaghan spoke to a group of trade union leaders from the U.S., Canada, Australia and Japan at Harvard.


Indirectly related:

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs
Journalism and Democracy
Journalism, the fabled Fourth Estate, was once guided by the dictum: Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable. Today, millionaire anchors, caked in makeup and competing for the best hair on the air are bored readers of teleprompters. As newspapers, TV and radio are gobbled up by huge conglomerates fixated on maximizing profits, investigative journalism, digging for stories, recedes into memory. If information is key to the healthy functioning of democracy then what happens when the focus is on Scott Peterson and Martha Stewart? And when White House and Pentagon press releases are accepted as fact? A textbook case of journalism's decline is Iraq. Reporters were a conveyor belt for administration fabrications. Many of them went a step further, they became embedded.


The divine right of Capitol by Marjorie Kelly (from 2002)
Ordinary people work all their lives, expecting their pensions upon retirement. Instead, they're handed pink slips, then told their pensions are worthless. Corporate executives rake in millions while shady accounting practices hide the fact that they are at the helms of ships in trouble. When news of massive corporate scandals at Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing broke, people demanded change. High profile hearings were held, CEOs were indicted and a corporate crime bill was easily passed by the House and Senate. But has anything really changed?

The Politics of HealthcareBy Ralph Nadar
More than six decades after President Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated "the right to adequate medical care and opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health," the United States, virtually alone among wealthy nations, does not have universal health care coverage. The health care system is sick, failing, expensive, and inefficient. Its attendant paperwork and mumbo jumbo are legendary. In addition to ever increasing millions of those without insurance, many more millions have inadequate coverage with huge deductibles. Medical emergencies and hospitalizations are probably the number one cause of driving citizens into debt and bankruptcy. The health insurance lobby, representing 1500 corporations, is one of the most politically powerful and exerts enormous influence in Washington. And the people? They are symbolically left standing out in the hall. Isn't it time for the U.S. to have a comprehensive national health program for its citizens?

[Phatscotty]

If my household goes broke I will call a family meeting and tell them that we will spend our way out of this recession. We will go to Rent-A-Center, Sears, K-Mart, and lots of other retail centers and run up debt. We can buy a government printer and print a few counterfeit bucks while we are at it because of bad credit. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well the democrats believe it.

[Woodruff]

expanded and extended it.

You seem to have thoroughly missed the point of my post.

[Woodruff]

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.

Yes, they have certainly been honest. Particularly in light of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. I've been very impressed with what the liberals have done on that front.

Are you somehow mistaking Democrats with liberals? Because there has been plenty on this in places like Alternative Radio.

Certainly not...that myth connection was dispelled long ago.

Per the Democrats... I have said all along that there is plenty I don't like about the Obama administration. Its just that even with the failings, it still FAR surpasses the Bush administration overall.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm really not seeing much difference between the two.

Right now, all people seem to care about is the economy. The rest is not going to get better until the economy gets better, because people who feel threatened want scapegoats, not hard truths. Facing the realities you mention requires facing hard truths.

Sorry, but the economy doesn't impact our ability to repeal the Patriot Act or the new wiretapping situation. And I disagree with your thought that a large number of people don't want that done NOW.

Right now, we have a choice between a return to McCarthyism, combined with a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900's OR The Democrats. Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not evil.

For all your complaints about how liberals are characterized, you do an awful lot of that yourself.

[Phatscotty]

expanded and extended it.

You seem to have thoroughly missed the point of my post.

perhaps. I was probably just too damn absorbed with making my own point.

[tzor]

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.

I would normally be rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off on that one. Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend my party is Snow White. (Although the Democrats could be described by the Seven Dwarves.) Democratic double-speak is common. It is just that Democrats as a whole have tunnel vision to the double speak of their own party. (Just as is the case with Republicans, only in our case we say "WTF? That's ass is a RINO" as the party masses continue to nominate him to office.)

[PLAYER57832]

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.

Yes, they have certainly been honest. Particularly in light of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. I've been very impressed with what the liberals have done on that front.

Are you somehow mistaking Democrats with liberals? Because there has been plenty on this in places like Alternative Radio.

Certainly not...that myth connection was dispelled long ago.

Per the Democrats... I have said all along that there is plenty I don't like about the Obama administration. Its just that even with the failings, it still FAR surpasses the Bush administration overall.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm really not seeing much difference between the two.

Right now, all people seem to care about is the economy. The rest is not going to get better until the economy gets better, because people who feel threatened want scapegoats, not hard truths. Facing the realities you mention requires facing hard truths.

Sorry, but the economy doesn't impact our ability to repeal the Patriot Act or the new wiretapping situation. And I disagree with your thought that a large number of people don't want that done NOW.

I agree with both statements, but the economy is what people are going to be voting on. Also, the reason so many people are willing to accept things like wiretapping is the fear-mongering and scapegoating that proliferates in bad economic times.

Also, I don't see any real, honest Republican platform to alter those things. (I do see a few Democrats trying-- though nowhere near enough, no.) I see them hollaring "Obama is destroying America", but they mean jobs, taxes, homosexuality and abortion, not such "minor" (to them) issues as the Patriot Act.

Right now, we have a choice between a return to McCarthyism, combined with a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900's OR The Democrats. Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not evil.

For all your complaints about how liberals are characterized, you do an awful lot of that yourself.[/quote]
The conservative label is a self-defined label. That is the difference. My definition of conservative is both things that support big business, generally support the current power structure. That is the fairly traditional definition. And, though there is some disagreement over goals, that is basically what conservatives support. I DO add in "right wing" because I don't feel that folks like Phattscotty and Nightstrike should be lumped in with you and greekdog. Liberaterians are different, but that's another topic. (and yes, I realize that greekdog identifies himself mostly as Liberaterian, but he also is conservative ecnomically.. per his own definitions).

[Woodruff]

Right now, we have a choice between a return to McCarthyism, combined with a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900's OR The Democrats. Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not evil.

For all your complaints about how liberals are characterized, you do an awful lot of that yourself.

The conservative label is a self-defined label. That is the difference.

I sure don't recall any conservatives defining themselves as McCarthyists, nor do I recall them stating they'd like a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900s. And finally, I certainly don't recall them defining themselves as evil.

So, pretty much everything you said there...no.

[PLAYER57832]

Right now, we have a choice between a return to McCarthyism, combined with a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900's OR The Democrats. Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not evil.

For all your complaints about how liberals are characterized, you do an awful lot of that yourself.

The conservative label is a self-defined label. That is the difference.

I sure don't recall any conservatives defining themselves as McCarthyists, nor do I recall them stating they'd like a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900s. And finally, I certainly don't recall them defining themselves as evil.

So, pretty much everything you said there...no.

OK, now I see where the confusion arose.
The folks to whom I refer are not conservative. We are not fighting a liberal versus conservative battle now. It is a battle between the far right, folks with whom Phattscotty, etc would be quite happy, and some closer to the middle folks. There might be a few true liberals in Congress, but they are not showing their views very well right now.


Look at all the accusations of "this is communist".. or "Obama is returning us to socialism... destroying America". I don't mean just here, I mean "out there" ... we are not even allowed to talk about these issues any more, as far as some people are concerned. That's McCarthyism.

Look at the number of calls for "eliminating government.. except for basics" and "excess 'safety' rules", etc... people want to say "no government", but then try to say that history won't repeat itself. I say it will. People who refer to communism are not looking at history, but an imagined future. I am referring to what actually existed when we did not have many controls on business.

Finally, per the evil... no, this is not a reference to conservatives. But, it is a reference I explained earlier. This was just shorthand.

[PLAYER57832]

And liberals... have pretty much naively kept trying to be honest.

I would normally be rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off on that one. Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend my party is Snow White. (Although the Democrats could be described by the Seven Dwarves.) Democratic double-speak is common. It is just that Democrats as a whole have tunnel vision to the double speak of their own party. (Just as is the case with Republicans, only in our case we say "WTF? That's ass is a RINO" as the party masses continue to nominate him to office.)

You seem to believe I refer to Democrats. I said "liberals"...

and no, I don't mean any individuals. Its that liberals have been largely arguing ideas, expecting that if they came up with the best ideas, then everyone else would just come along and see.. instead of getting out and campaigning. Thats naive and stupid. I don't belong to a liberal party and would not consider any political party to be "snow white".

[Woodruff]

Right now, we have a choice between a return to McCarthyism, combined with a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900's OR The Democrats. Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they are not evil.

For all your complaints about how liberals are characterized, you do an awful lot of that yourself.

The conservative label is a self-defined label. That is the difference.

I sure don't recall any conservatives defining themselves as McCarthyists, nor do I recall them stating they'd like a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900s. And finally, I certainly don't recall them defining themselves as evil.

So, pretty much everything you said there...no.

OK, now I see where the confusion arose.
The folks to whom I refer are not conservative.

Then you're the one that confused it, since you responded to me with "The conservative label is a self-defined label".

But aside from that then...I don't recall ANYONE defining themselves as McCarthyists, nor do I recall ANYONE stating they'd like a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900s. And finally, I certainly don't recall ANYONE defining themselves as evil.

Again, back to my point, for someone that whines about "labels" as much as you do, you certainly aren't shy about throwing them around yourself...there's a word for that, I think.

[Phatscotty]

[PLAYER57832]

But aside from that then...I don't recall ANYONE defining themselves as McCarthyists,

No, but Phattscotty and several others have absolutely fit the mold. So do many of the folks currently in the forefront of promoting the Republican Agenda, such as Glenn Beck. When I use it, it is appropriate.

nor do I recall ANYONE stating they'd like a return to the "no holds on business" days of the early 1900s.

No, but they ignore history. Unlike the idea that every move away from absolute capitalism will lead to socialism, we HAVE historical precedent to show us what happens when holds are removed on business. In fact, we have examples all around us.

Ironically, the examples of socialism around us, in this world, result in some of the happiet societies in earth. (per some studies published maybe a year or so ago, as well as history). Not the "fake" socialism that was really totalianarism seen in the USSR and China, even Cuba, but more true socialism. (though Cuba is actually not the failure it is made out to be, or wasn't until recently -- not saying I like that system, it is politically oppressive, but you did see rises in literacy and the overall standard of living for decades)

And finally, I certainly don't recall ANYONE defining themselves as evil.

Nor have I. However, the impact of many decisions is evil. That is the trouble. If evil were only committed by evil people, we would not have much of a worry. Unfortunately, some of the very worst evils are committed by people so convinced they are correct they simply refuse to consider any other alternative. That type of thinking is more and more predominent, and I don't mean the essentially "mannerly" rhetoric that would see congressment shouting at each other (truly), but then able to sit down and have a drink together after its all done, play a round of golf, etc. I have very good friend with whom I don't agree on many subjects. We broach them occasionally, mostly "agree to disagree". You likely have the same. (to an extent, that would be us here on the internet, though the internet is no the same as reality) But, does Phattscotty or Nightstrike? Maybe, but if so... I don't think they ever bother to even listen

Again, back to my point, for someone that whines about "labels" as much as you do, you certainly aren't shy about throwing them around yourself...there's a word for that, I think.

I have begun using labels more and more. However, there is a difference between saying that someone who shouts "socialism, enemy of the country" at every blip and someone who shouts "liberal, wants to tax and spend.. ignore them" every time anything they truly dislike comes up whether it really has anything to do with liberalism or not. Conservatives DO want to support big business over the "working folks". They can argue that they see it as beneficial to all, but that is they approach it by benefitting business first. Right wing (particularly Christian) conservatives DO want to outlaw abortion, eliminate most science teaching (threatens Creationist views), and keep homosexuals from fully being part of society.

AND, when someone talks about doing away with restrictions tso business is "less impeded", then looking back to when that actually did happen, AND understanding how it lead to all that, specifically that it was not just a bunch of evil people (just people like Marie Antoinette, who had little contact with the people they were harming) is important.