View Full Version : The Dangers Of Revolutionary Right-wing Rhetoric
A case study and something to ponder...from both sides of the aisles.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Dangers Of Revolutionary Right-wing Rhetoric
Walter Rodgers, CSM, 27 Nov 2009
Few places have deeper scars from violent invective and verbal incitement than this North Carolina city where people still speak in whispers, embarrassed by the events of Nov. 10, 1898. Wilmington is tragic testament to the fact that social progress is not inevitable and that, left unchallenged, hateful speech and words frequently morph into violence.
Today, talk of an antigovernment revolution has gone mainstream in America. One federal law-enforcement agency has discovered 50 new militia groups, including one made up of past and current police officers and soldiers. While in office, President Bush was the target of roughly 3,000 death threats a year. President Obama is on pace to quintuple that. In this environment, Americans might well reflect on Wilmington's experience 111 years ago.
In 1898, this city was years ahead of the rest of the American South, building an inclusive, interracial political culture. It had a burgeoning black middle class. A new era of hope dawned in North Carolina.
But the losers in the 1896 elections, the white Democrats, sulked on the margins, threatened by political irrelevance. Their sense of entitlement to governance had just been rejected by white progressives and black voters. "Take back the state," became their battle cry.
And they did just that. On Nov. 9, some Wilmington whites issued a White Declaration of Independence, proclaiming "that we will no longer be ruled ... by men of African origin."
The next day, a vigilante group of armed supremacists forcibly removed the Republican city leaders (both black and white) from office, and took control, burning buildings and shooting blacks. The official death toll was fewer than 20, though African-American oral tradition claims the Cape Fear River was choked with hundreds of bodies. There is no question that thousands of frightened blacks fled.
Neither President McKinley nor the governor of North Carolina (both Republicans) acted to stop or reverse what amounted to a coup and race riot. Soon thereafter, Jim Crow laws undermined basic rights for blacks for the next half century.
One gets a sense of déjà vu listening to today's right-wingers talk. In March, Fox News host Glenn Beck said: "If this country starts to spiral out of control ... there will be parts of the country that will rise up."
That's what happened in Wil*ming*ton in 1898. Those who lost power in elections launched a coup marked by terror. Such a revolutionary impulse resonates again.
This spring, covering an antitax "tea party" protest in Boston, Fox News Business anchor Cody Willard raged, "Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?"
The Rev. William J. Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, recalls similar sentiment on Southern billboards during the civil-rights era, "painting Martin Luther King as a communist, a socialist, and anti-American."
As in 1898, a prominent black American's patriotism and legitimacy are questioned. Today, the radical, reactionary right asks whether Obama is really an American citizen. Mr. Barber warns of what he calls "a rebirth of dangerous rhetoric," reminding us that "all forms of violence are preceded by violent language."
Today, the hate barometer is climbing dangerously upward. In August, Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist church of Tempe, Ariz., told his congregants he prays for Obama's death. So, too, does the Rev. Wiley Drake in California.
The lesson is obvious: Healthy language produces healthy communities. Unhealthy language results in unhealthy communities. "The 1898 Wilmington violence laid the foundation for a one-party state, driving a wedge between peoples for political ends," says David Cecelski, a North Carolina historian. "It strikes me as immoral."
Wilmington still struggles with the legacy of these events more than a century later. Generations of black children were condemned to third-rate educations. Today, under the banner of "neighborhood schools," the city, like other municipalities nationwide, faces subtle efforts to resegregate classrooms. Perhaps the most tragic facet of white-hot rhetoric then and now is that democracy was betrayed; and trust, the linchpin of democracy, was destroyed.
A year ago, Wilmington community leaders such as District Attorney Ben David helped launch a reconciliation campaign to restore interracial trust and move beyond blame and defensiveness toward healing. It is a slow process.
Nationally, Americans need to have a similar conversation to avoid repeating the country's painful racial history. Today's fire-eaters and right-wing bloggers might consider the long-term human and social damage inflicted on Wilmington by an earlier generation of alienated politicians. Then they should tamp down their toxic brew of incitement, hateful language, and subtly disguised racism.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1127/p09s02-coop.html
It appears Mr. Walter Rodgers is inappropriately attributing “racism” to those (tea baggers) who oppose collectivism :confused:
Warrior-Mentor
11-29-2009, 07:43
Surprised to see this published by the Christian Science Monitor.
The title alone labels it an attack from the liberal left.
UNDERLINED below are all the Liberal buzzwords.
The Dangers Of Revolutionary Right-wing Rhetoric
Walter Rodgers, CSM, 27 Nov 2009
Few places have deeper scars from violent invective and verbal incitement than this North Carolina city where people still speak in whispers, embarrassed by the events of Nov. 10, 1898. Wilmington is tragic testament to the fact that social progress is not inevitable and that, left unchallenged, hateful speech and words frequently morph into violence.
Today, talk of an antigovernment revolution has gone mainstream in America. One federal law-enforcement agency has discovered 50 new militia groups, including one made up of past and current police officers and soldiers. While in office, President Bush was the target of roughly 3,000 death threats a year. President Obama is on pace to quintuple that. In this environment, Americans might well reflect on Wilmington's experience 111 years ago.
In 1898, this city was years ahead of the rest of the American South, building an inclusive, interracial political culture. It had a burgeoning black middle class. A new era of hope dawned in North Carolina.
But the losers in the 1896 elections, the white Democrats, sulked on the margins, threatened by political irrelevance. Their sense of entitlement to governance had just been rejected by white progressives and black voters. "Take back the state," became their battle cry.
And they did just that. On Nov. 9, some Wilmington whites issued a White Declaration of Independence, proclaiming "that we will no longer be ruled ... by men of African origin." [COMMENT: Anyone paying attention will notice a close similarity to the "CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM," which subordinates all human rights to only those permitted by sharia, with the goal of subverting and ultimately supplanting the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.]
The next day, a vigilante group of armed supremacists forcibly removed the Republican city leaders (both black and white) from office, and took control, burning buildings and shooting blacks. The official death toll was fewer than 20, though African-American oral tradition claims the Cape Fear River was choked with hundreds of bodies. There is no question that thousands of frightened blacks fled. [COMMENT: Sounds like Christians fleeing Muslim majority countries and cities once they reach critical mass. Once Christian Lebanon, Egypt, even Bethlehem...the list goes on...]
Neither President McKinley nor the governor of North Carolina (both Republicans) acted to stop or reverse what amounted to a coup and race riot. Soon thereafter, Jim Crow laws undermined basic rights for blacks for the next half century. [COMMENT: Much like sharia law undermines rights of non-Muslims.]
One gets a sense of déjà vu listening to today's right-wingers talk. In March, Fox News host Glenn Beck said: "If this country starts to spiral out of control ... there will be parts of the country that will rise up."
That's what happened in Wil*ming*ton in 1898. Those who lost power in elections launched a coup marked by terror. Such a revolutionary impulse resonates again.
This spring, covering an antitax "tea party" protest in Boston, Fox News Business anchor Cody Willard raged, "Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?"
The Rev. William J. Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, recalls similar sentiment on Southern billboards during the civil-rights era, "painting Martin Luther King as a communist, a socialist, and anti-American." [COMMENT: This is an attempt to paint a parallel between blacks in the past and Muslims now. Don't be fooled. There's a HUGE difference. No one can choose their race. Race is not an ideology. You can choose your religion. You can choose to believe or dis-believe what you want. Islam is not a race. What race is a Muslim?]
As in 1898, a prominent black American's patriotism and legitimacy are questioned. Today, the radical, reactionary right asks whether Obama is really an American citizen. Mr. Barber warns of what he calls "a rebirth of dangerous rhetoric," reminding us that "all forms of violence are preceded by violent language."
Today, the hate barometer is climbing dangerously upward. In August, Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist church of Tempe, Ariz., told his congregants he prays for Obama's death. So, too, does the Rev. Wiley Drake in California.
The lesson is obvious: Healthy language produces healthy communities. Unhealthy language results in unhealthy communities. "The 1898 Wilmington violence laid the foundation for a one-party state, driving a wedge between peoples for political ends," says David Cecelski, a North Carolina historian. "It strikes me as immoral." [COMMENT: I disagree with his logic leap to conclusion. There are times when unpleasant talk is necessary. And discussion of Islam's ugly points are necessary for the common good of this nation. read the thread: "Why the Negativity?" for further insight why this is necessary...]
Wilmington still struggles with the legacy of these events more than a century later. Generations of black children were condemned to third-rate educations. Today, under the banner of "neighborhood schools," the city, like other municipalities nationwide, faces subtle efforts to resegregate classrooms. Perhaps the most tragic facet of white-hot rhetoric then and now is that democracy was betrayed; and trust, the linchpin of democracy, was destroyed.
A year ago, Wilmington community leaders such as District Attorney Ben David helped launch a reconciliation campaign to restore interracial trust and move beyond blame and defensiveness toward healing. It is a slow process.
Nationally, Americans need to have a similar conversation to avoid repeating the country's painful racial history. Today's fire-eaters and right-wing bloggers might consider the long-term human and social damage inflicted on Wilmington by an earlier generation of alienated politicians. Then they should tamp down their toxic brew of incitement, hateful language, and subtly disguised racism.
[COMMENT: Again, what race is a Muslim?]
YGBSM! :eek:
Richard's jaded $.02
I would call that article very insightful. For 8 long years while the federal government experienced massive growth, our national debt doubled, non defense discretionary spending rose at 1.5 times that of the Clinton era, massive legislation such as the prescription drug plan which was nothing but a gift for big pharm, the people screaming loudest now were silent. The federal government, according to Richard Viguerre, was turned into an ATM machine for special interests, the screamers were silent. Do you know why the prescription drug plan can't negotiate prices? Because "it would be in violation of free market principles." What horseshit! The screamers were silent.Deregulation in the financial industry, which began ten years ago lead to a near collapse of the worlds economy. There was a reason there were rules in the financial industry but they were limiting Wall Streets ability to steal so they were thrown out and the screamers were silent. The Iraq war turned into a cluster fuck! If you questioned it todays screamers said you weren't supporting our troups. We passed one of the largest violations of our rights in history called The Patriot Act and if you questioned any part of it you were a traitor. And todays screamers were silent!
The Obama administration inherited 2 wars and a financial crisis of immense proportions. Almost immediately certain peolple began to assault him for a variety of reasons. Some even publicly stating they hoped he failed. So NOW the screamers decide to scream! Why not 6-7 years ago? Race? Or something even worse? I think a little of both. And there are plenty of people in this country who are willing to be blindly led.
Dad, your last post was long on Horse Shit.
Your "facts" are a jumble of half truths. The prescription drug plan was opposed by conservatives.
Most of Bush's "reach over to the Democrats" ideas were opposed by conservatives.
Bloated Federal spending under cover of Homeland Security was opposed by conservatives but used as pork paybacks by both parties.
The financial mess can be laid right at the feet of the Democrats - not Republicans.
That was why support for McCain was so weak from the right and only picked up after he picked Palin to be his running mate.
The left is now looking at another bailout of people who should not have bought homes to begin with.
Team Sergeant
11-29-2009, 09:28
Surprised to see this published by the Christian Science Monitor.
The title alone labels it an attack from the liberal left.
[/COLOR]
Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN.
Nuff said.
Sorry, it was not bullshit, no disrespect meant. The founder of an investment banking firm in the Midwest and a securities lawyer have been warning me of the disaster for 10 years. The lawyer is a member of the federalist Society and the investment banker served as finance chairman for numerous Republican campaigns from governors to senators. They were both committed Republicans. There may have been Dem's who went along, but the deregulation in the financial industry was led by Republicans--notably Phil Gramm. OOPS, you're right. Phil Gramm was a democrat until he switched!!
And don't forget Tom Delay's participation!! He is the one who told Bush(reportedly) to keep his hands off the budget when Bush wanted to cut it. And he is now on the board of the American Conservative Union! However, upon his appointment 6 board members resigned in protest.
Good reading is "To Big To Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin. Books by Portnoy(?) are suppodedly outstanding as he made the predictions in them. I have not read Portnoy, only had the info in them relayed to me.
Sorry, it was not bullshit, no disrespect meant. ....
Sorry, any post on the financial issues of last year that does not address the CRA and the Democrats and ACORNs pushing of it and the expansion of its priciples is bullshit.
The Reaper
11-29-2009, 10:29
I was born and raised in NC, spent most of my military career in NC.
I have spent a lot of time in Wilmington, have a lot of friends there.
The only time I hear this story is when someone feels that it supports some agenda they have, and dredge it up. I too am surprised that the CSM would publish this screed.
There are many events in our past by people of all races and creeds that are lamentable. That cannot continually be the basis for all future decisions. We need to accept the past, move on and embrace personal responsibility for our own actions and accept the consequences.
As far as education and opportunity goes, there is no one born in this country today who is prohibited from success by anyone other than themselves. THe current occupant of the White House clearly demonstrates that.
TR
Irishsquid
11-29-2009, 11:14
Right-Wing revolutionary rhetoric? How's that for unbiased reporting? Of the thousands advocating violent revolution, I don't know of many outside the crazy nutjob militias who do so out of rascism. Most are alarmed by the increasingly socialist and globalist federal government, growing larger and more powerful at an astounding rate. These same issues are of serious concern to most of us, I think. Difference is, most of us don't advocate violent revolution.
Question I have is, at what point does one decide "enough is enough?" I'm sure at first, Nazi Germany started with a few silly restrictions and gun-control laws, right? Can't overthrow a government for that...
Instead, though, the Jews waited until they were being wholesale slaughtered before they even thought to resist. Where is that point in the middle where a line is drawn? When does it become a serious enough matter that one is willing to be the first to stand and fight, in the (possibly) vain hope that others will join his cause?
Team Sergeant
11-29-2009, 11:37
I find it ludicrous that anyone, especially "journalists" are discussing the race issue as a concern with the current administration.
Today, race is not the issue and in my opinion simpleminded little men (and women) that use race in any right or left wing debate/discussion are nothing more than ignorant, left wing pandering, self-serving, disingenuous morons.
The current application of race and racism is nothing more than an attempt to deflect, misdirect & redirect right wing criticism as nothing more than racism that carries no credible weight and, therefore, should not be heard.
So far the only individuals that have blatantly thrown the "race" card have been far left wing extremists and simpleminded peanut farmers. And the only one admonished for his throwing of the race card was the peanut farmer. The above article by Walter Rodgers is a shining example of what I'm talking about.
I don't look at obama and see black, I look and see him as an intelligent "extreme" left wing socialist with a dangerous agenda.
Team Sergeant
I find it ludicrous that anyone, especially "journalists" are discussing the race issue as a concern with the current administration.
Today, race is not the issue and in my opinion simpleminded little men (and women) that use race in any right or left wing debate/discussion are nothing more than ignorant, left wing pandering, self-serving, disingenuous morons.
The current application of race and racism is nothing more than an attempt to deflect, misdirect & redirect right wing criticism as nothing more than racism that carries no credible weight and, therefore, should not be heard.
So far the only individuals that have blatantly thrown the "race" card have been far left wing extremists and simpleminded peanut farmers. And the only one admonished for his throwing of the race card was the peanut farmer. The above article by Walter Rodgers is a shining example of what I'm talking about.
I don't look at obama and see black, I look and see him as an intelligent "extreme" left wing socialist with a dangerous agenda.
Team Sergeant
Very well said, TS Sir!!! Very dangerous.
Holly
rubberneck
11-29-2009, 12:04
It's interesting but after the midterm elections in 2002 the Democrats found themselves in much the same place that the Republicans found themselves a year ago. Displaced and powerless the rhetoric from their side was no less hateful and seething with anger not only at the President but at the government than what is coming from the right today. Why is it why the right expresses the same sentiments the threat of violence is quite probable but when it comes from the left it is patriotic dissent. It's bullshit. Pardon my french.
"Dad",
It seems that your facts that you cite are "accurate" but very slanted.
Deregulation in the financial industry, which began ten years ago lead to a near collapse of the worlds economy.
You imply that because nobody was looking it's ok to take what's not yours? So it was the SEC's fault for not catching crooks such as Madoff? I would argue that the cause of the collapse was greed, lack of integrity, and lack of personal responsibility.
The founder of an investment banking firm in the Midwest and a securities lawyer have been warning me of the disaster for 10 years.
Yes but you (wrongly) imply that Bush caused it.
(source (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Roots_of_financial_crisis_in_Clinton_housing_polic y.html))
former Wall Streeter Robert Cox noted that “in response to political pressure at the time, the GSEs took steps to make homeownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history.” Those steps encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low “teasers.” Home ownership rates soared to historic highs and all was well as long as home prices increased and lenders could comfortably convert floating-rate mortgages to fixed-rate obligations. Then home values declined. Lenders foreclosed when buyers missed payments as adjustable mortgage rates increased. When the mortgage-backed securities plunged in value as a result, Fannie and Freddie turned to Congress to cover the losses.
The reference to political pressure is mostly likely the 1997 VA/HUD appropriations bill (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=610):
A centerpiece of federal housing efforts has been the FHA loan program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This mortgage program has helped numerous first-time home buyers overcome obstacles that would have been insurmountable under conventional mortgage programs. With lower down payment requirements, lower asset requirements and looser credit standards.
The kicker about this bill was:
The bill cuts public housing funds by $515 million relative to last year, an eight percent cut. The bill also provides $185 million less in public housing operating funds than the Administration requested, choosing instead to fund this account at the FY 1999 level that is widely acknowledged to have been inadequate.
The bill fails to fund any of the 100,000 new Section 8 housing vouchers that Congress authorized as part of last year's public housing reform act. Housing vouchers help low- and moderate-income families, including elderly, disabled and working families, afford apartments that they locate in the private market.
Can't afford an apartment? Heck, just go buy a house! But the poor didn't want to live in a crappy house so why not buy one that was recently "flipped"! HGTV will show you how to flip a house and the profits will be TAX FREE!
"The big news (http://www.mortgagealmanac.com/articles/97-hounderclinton2ndterm.html) for home buyers and sellers in 1997 will be President Clinton's campaign promise to eliminate the capital gains tax on home sales for profits below $250,000."
The Iraq war turned into a cluster fuck! If you questioned it todays screamers said you weren't supporting our troups.
Please clarify the Charlie Foxtrot you ref'd above. Some say the goal was regime change. Others say the actual goal was create a jihadi killing field; a place where Islamic fascists would gather to die so they wouldn't come here. Dunno.
We passed one of the largest violations of our rights in history called The Patriot Act
Have you actually read it (http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm)? There's even a section on myths (http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/u_myths.htm). Please expound how our rights have been violated by this Act. If the USG wants to look at my library books, internet use, etc, I say have at it. As part of my agreement with the USG, they're already looking at my medical records, credit report, banking records, etc.
The Patriot Act and if you questioned any part of it you were a traitor.
I would suggest a slight change to "...if you questioned any part of it you were misinformed."
And there are plenty of people in this country who are willing to be blindly led
Research is the key to prevent this. I learned very early on to find 3 sources, two of which would be opposing viewpoints, then compare and contrast. Then go with your gut...or you could wait a few months and then make a decision based on which decision will make you more popular.
So NOW the screamers decide to scream! Why not 6-7 years ago?
Because 6-7 years ago, my kids, my unborn grand-kids, and I weren't paying for my neighbor's house, car, and soon his new refrigerator...oh, and ultimately his damn medical bills. I have worked to pay for the stuff I have and expected NOTHING to be "given" to me. Is that the same now? Want to refi your house but underwater? If you're current on payments, tough. Miss a couple and over extended on credit cards, car payment, etc...well, come on down!
Race? C'mon man! A weak argument point often used by those who cannot justify a logical opposing viewpoint!!! Unless you're talking about the 2012 Presidential Race, then yes: It is about THAT RACE!!!
I suggest you research the political affiliation of the leaders of the following cities:
Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark (hint: all share Democrat "leadership").
Then research the poverty rates of those cities.
Yes, I too hope the Democrats fail. I don't want to live in a country where that type of leadership is accepted as the norm. (oh damn...I just wrote that and I read one of Richard's posts today. I'm on the list for sure now.) :D
Lindy
Warrior-Mentor
11-29-2009, 12:14
YGBSM! :eek:
Richard's jaded $.02
Have you read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam?
http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm
NOTE: Focus on Article 2, 24 and and 25. Everything falls under sharia. Including their right to kill you.
Have you read the OIC's 10 Year Plan of Action?
http://www.oic-oci.org/10y/en/
(23) POA I.7.3.
Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact
laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.
47. Have an international resolution issued by the UN to combat Islamophobia.
SEE ALSO NOTES FROM:
OIC International Conference on Terrorism:
Dimensions, Threats and Countermeasures
Concluding Observations from the Chair, November 2007 Tunis
As Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsangolu, OIC Secretary General noted, there is a growing need to be more concerned with tackling “defamatory campaigns that seek to incite a particular civilization against another, thereby inflaming violence, hatred and extremism, and ultimately leading to terrorism”.
[COMMENT: Another case of shifting responsibility for acts of violence from perpetrator to victim.]
The OIC Secretary General went on to say:
“As reiterated by the OIC, the international community must counter campaigns of calumny against Islam and Muslims to prevent the spread of Islamophobia which attempts to cause a rift between civilizations, a situation that has become a new form of racial discrimination.”
[COMMENT: Where is the race in this racism?]
Actually, Madoff should have been discovered by FINRA, not the SEC. You forget, Wall Street is a self regulating industry. Never blamed Bush, just all came together on his watch.I actually like the man. Iraq? We're still there. The Patriot Act? I would reference the Team Sergeant's post in another forum. If the people would have screamed 7 years ago, a lot of issues we face today, economically, would not exist. We might not have a democrat controlled congress and White House either. Sorry, but the Republican Party I voted for for 30 years has died or retired. It has been replaced by self serving hipocrites. I am hoping a new face will pop up and save the Party. Maybe Bobby Jindal. He is a financial conservative and a skilled administrator. More importantly, he has proven he has the courage to take on entrenched interests. Just have to see.
The Reaper
11-29-2009, 14:32
Any promising conservative who tries to rise to power will be Borked by the MSM. Bork, Thomas, Quayle, Palin, just like them, any new up and comers will be personally attacked and their credibility destroyed.
That is just the way it is.
TR
Any promising conservative who tries to rise to power will be Borked by the MSM. .......
The MSM is hard at work right now playing up Mittens, the G-man and Huckster.
The MSM wants a good bruising fight in the Republican Primary with the conservative vote split between people like Jindal, Palin and a couple more on the right.
That way the Republicans field another "moderate" like McCain.
No Democrat primary in 2012 so there will be lots of crossover votes to "help" with the choice.
It is not rhetoric - right or left wing - that will create danger. Rather, it will be desperation.
LINK (http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html)
In my opinion, present approaches will exacerbate the employment trends depicted at the above link. If that is the case, then - again, in my opinion - recovery will be deferred.
Rhetorical Question: Who is more radical than the fellow who lost his job, his house, and has hungry children?
Rhetorical Answer: I don't know.
Perhaps, instead of focusing on the rhetoric, we should think very hard about why following the same policies that haven't worked for Japan for two decades are somehow going to work for us. Then maybe we should change those policy choices.
GratefulCitizen
11-29-2009, 15:02
The article sounds like a bunch of whining.
Yeah, the libs won some temporary political power.
The real power is ultimately held by those who would pull the trigger.
They can never fully enforce their will and this is just a temper tantrum expressing the realization of this fact.
The people are too well armed; LEO and military wouldn't back the swift, unconstitional action required to consolidate power during their limited tenure.
It's almost like the founding fathers put the division of powers, the election cycles, and the 2nd amendment in the Constitution for an express purpose. ;)
November 2, 2010: JUDGEMENT DAY
Many a congress-critter will be receiving a pink slip. You reap what you sow.
There is talk of another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Steele) in "The Free State".
Steele's nomination would, IMO, have the Dims scratching their heads as far as a strategy for direct personal attacks since the race card would be null & void.
There is talk of another ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Steele) in "The Free State".
Steele's nomination would, IMO, have the Dims scratching their heads as far as a strategy for direct personal attacks since the race card would be null & void.
The link is dead.
alright4u
11-29-2009, 16:05
The Obama administration inherited 2 wars and a financial crisis of immense proportions. Almost immediately certain peolple began to assault him for a variety of reasons. Some even publicly stating they hoped he failed. So NOW the screamers decide to scream! Why not 6-7 years ago? Race? Or something even worse? I think a little of both. And there are plenty of people in this country who are willing to be blindly led.
You are lost.
There is talk of another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Steele) in "The Free State".
Steele's nomination would, IMO, have the Dims scratching their heads as far as a strategy for direct personal attacks since the race card would be null & void.
Since Obama took office Steele has made some incredibly stupid statements for being the head of the RNC.
He appears to be trying to get the MSM to like him. Ask McCain how that worked for him.
The Reaper
11-29-2009, 17:33
Steele is an idiot and is no conservative.
I could go with J.C. Watts or Condi Rice, among many others.
The Dims have been running Congress since 2007. I see them trying to transfer blame for a number of issues they supported and voted for over the years.
TR
The Obama administration inherited 2 wars and a financial crisis of immense proportions.
Observe firsthand those who caused the housing/financial crisis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/user/NakedEmperorNews#p/u/29/usvG-s_Ssb0
Warrior-Mentor
11-29-2009, 19:24
Observe firsthand those who caused the housing/financial crisis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/user/NakedEmperorNews#p/u/29/usvG-s_Ssb0
C-SPAN. Boring. Accurate. Real-time. Amazing what happens when you pay attention to our legislators.
Thanks for the research!
Animal8526
11-29-2009, 22:30
That article is just another piece of evidence supporting the fact that the "other side" has nothing. "Racism" is their trump card... But it's also the only one they know how to play.
And should we be so inclined to attempt electing a black conservative he'll be labeled as a "house nigger" or "not really black".
How do you fight an enemy that uses lies and distortion to sway the weak minded, and posesses most of the most prominent pulpits with which to spew their bull?
The QP's around here likely have a better idea than I. The ultimate question is whether or not the first two "boxes" have any further ability to save us.
The ultimate question is whether or not the first two "boxes" have any further ability to save us.
Indeed it is!
That said, I cannot help wondering if the candidate that we need is electable.
Would we elect someone who told us that we would need to cut spending at every level - from federal down to school district - by 20% or so? Would we be prepared to quit increasing the national debt? I cannot help but wonder.
You fight back by quietly and calmly speaking the truth to the guy sitting next to you in the coffee shop, and by becoming politically active.
Washington is a day care center for our nation's biggest babies. There are a few good men, yes, but they are the exception rather than the rule. This nation will be back on track when there are more than just a "few" good men in Washington.
I posted the article as it gives a historical example of the potential consequences of the current rabidly hyperbolic language being used across the political, social, and broadcast spectrums -
...testament to the fact that social progress is not inevitable and that, left unchallenged, hateful speech and words frequently morph into violence.
As in 1898, a prominent black American's patriotism and legitimacy are questioned. Today, the radical, reactionary right asks whether Obama is really an American citizen. Mr. Barber warns of what he calls "a rebirth of dangerous rhetoric," reminding us that "all forms of violence are preceded by violent language."
In August, Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist church of Tempe, Ariz., told his congregants he prays for <POTUS> death. So, too, does the Rev. Wiley Drake in California.
Healthy language produces healthy communities. Unhealthy language results in unhealthy communities.
Wilmington still struggles with the legacy of these events more than a century later. Generations of black children were condemned to third-rate educations. Today, under the banner of "neighborhood schools," the city, like other municipalities nationwide, faces subtle efforts to resegregate classrooms. Perhaps the most tragic facet of white-hot rhetoric then and now is that democracy was betrayed; and trust, the linchpin of democracy, was destroyed.
Today's fire-eaters and <snip> bloggers might consider the long-term human and social damage inflicted <snip> by an earlier generation of alienated politicians. Then they should tamp down their toxic brew of incitement, hateful language, and subtly disguised racism.
It's an oped piece - and many are posted here daily - a reader doesn't have to agree with it all to realize that there are some salient points to be considered - and its general thesis - the power of language - is something I think we might want to ponder in today's increasingly complicated and technologically interconnected society where not every potential danger confronting us is about the threats we face from outside our own borders.
MOO - but - e pluribus unum.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
......MOO - but - e pluribus unum.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
These days more like -
Ex unus in plures
Team Sergeant
11-30-2009, 09:57
I posted the article as it gives a historical example of the potential consequences of the current rabidly hyperbolic language being used across the political, social, and broadcast spectrums - Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm not a Harvard or MIT Grad but I think that would tend to indicate the "people" are angry.
(And I consider it an honor to be counted as one of those "angry" people.)
Team Sergeant
Warrior-Mentor
11-30-2009, 10:05
I posted the article as it gives a historical example of the potential consequences of the current rabidly hyperbolic language being used across the political, social, and broadcast spectrums -
It's an oped piece - and many are posted here daily - a reader doesn't have to agree with it all to realize that there are some salient points to be considered - and its general thesis - the power of language - is something I think we might want to ponder in today's increasingly complicated and technologically interconnected society where not every potential danger confronting us is about the threats we face from outside our own borders.
MOO - but - e pluribus unum.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I disagree. In case you slept through this thread...here you go:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25244&highlight=negativity
I disagree.
Your prerogative as is mine to not agree with yours - but considering none but a singularly focused point-of-view and that which solely supports the point-of-view while incessantly trumpeting a Western version of 'The Narrative' (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1&em) can - in my opinion - result in as grave a set of unintended consequences as that of blatantly ignoring the threat from those who actually adhere to that which is described in Friedman's piece.
Personally - I agree with GEN Petraeus' point of view regarding Afghanistan and think it can be applied across the spectrum of Muslim society:
The war in Afghanistan is complicated by the nature of the enemy. Its fighters don’t wear uniforms that identify them as Taliban or al-Qaeda. “There is a wide spectrum of enemy,” Petraeus said. “There are a few true believers, but there are many others who support the enemy only because they feel threatened or intimidated and are just trying to survive.”
http://www.parade.com/news/2009/11/29-general-petraeus-gives-a-war-briefing.html?index=2
YMMV.
Was mich betrifft, bin ich nur der alte Mann in der Dunkelheit hat, die es vor gehört hat, und wer nur versucht, ein Bier zu genießen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUwpLyIDIJw&feature=related
Amerika erwacht...:confused:...und so geht es noch mal...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
:DAs we grow more polarized as a country, the recoil of reactions to reality will become uglier and de-unifying. Plain and simple. Many other countries find America's condition amusing and are laughing their asses off. I am only laughing because crying would dehydrate me and scare the children.
Nail, meet hammer. ;)
Understanding the reactions you mention are one of the reasons I originally sought out this board. I fully expect broad economic declines, and I strongly expect a variety of adverse reactions - in the U.S., of course, but also in other countries around the world. Understanding those reactions, getting new and fresh perspectives is, in my opinion, an important part of preparing for what will (not may come; rather, will come - MOO, YMMV) come.
Let us consider revolutionary rhetoric. If we go in front of a room of people who are affluent, satisfied, and hopeful about the future we can jump up and down and scream all we want; they are not going to respond. On the other hand, if we do the same things in front of people who are filled with anger, fear, and despair, we are more likely to get a reaction. If our hypothetical demagogue is clever, he can probably guide the reaction.
Hitler's era in Germany may, perhaps, offer some useful perspective. Germany had extensive war reparations debts after WWI, so they started printing. This led to hyperinflation, which reduced the savings of the German middle class to nothing. In combination with the 1929 depression, the German population was plunged into despair. Hitler then offered a message (tacky comment: hope and change :D ) that told the German people that they were the greatest, that shifted the blame for the problems to an identifiable someone else, and offered a way out of their problems.
History does not repeat exactly, and there are profound differences between the U.S. and pre WWII Germany. That said, I suspect that the coming (or should I say ongoing? ) destruction of the American middle class will result in the same emotional reactions mentioned above - fear, anger, and despair. We may then face some choices - do we choose the fellow who offers a quick fix, or do we choose that Sgt. Major who tells us that the promises made by government for more than half-a-century were lies, and will never be fulfilled? I have a nasty suspicion I know what we'll choose.
And BTW - I'm quite serious about the promises not being met. Social Security, Medicare, the new Health Care entitlement, and a host of other programs represent costs that simply cannot be covered. Here's a LINK (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/33579) to a brief article on the issue.
So, I really don't think the problem is rhetoric - I think the problem is to either fix the economy or adjust people's expectations. Both are hard problems. I expect that the future will be exciting. :eek:
alfromcolorado
11-30-2009, 18:56
I must say, I agree with some of the things Rangertab has to say... I think we could have a beer or two and BS.
IMHO it is not the left that will destroy America, or the right that will destroy America. It is the polarization that will destroy America. A society like ours should be built on compromise, not confrontation. But today, you have to be either right or left, and blindly so. No variation from the dogma.
I consider myself a middle of the roader and an independent. (I have learned that the real truth, at least IMHO, lies somewhere inbetween the incindeary BS of the political poles.) But being in the middle of the road is dangerous business since it is depopulated from being run over by the hard core right and left.
"My party is always right and your's is always wrong" is the between the lines reading of American politics today. I would think that was something Lenin or Hitler would say, but it doesn't surprise me anymore in American politics.
Now we question each others patriotism... Something both the Nazis and Soviets found a very useful tool.
We defeated both those threats only to fall prey to them.
What we need in America today is dialog, compromise, objectivity and the wish to better the greatest nation that has ever existed.
Instead we have something that resembles Monday Night Football with soccer fans. My team right or wrong.
I just hope we weather this storm like we have weathered so many in the past.
Edited to add: It amazes me, but I have seen far left websites that label Obama a neo con and far right websites that label Bush a socialist!!! The internet has done nothing but polarize us even more.
GratefulCitizen
11-30-2009, 22:46
IMHO it is not the left that will destroy America, or the right that will destroy America. It is the polarization that will destroy America. A society like ours should be built on compromise, not confrontation. But today, you have to be either right or left, and blindly so. No variation from the dogma.
Not sure what exactly is meant by this.
Compromise just means everyone gets to be unhappy.
IMO, a society like ours should be built on respect of boundaries.
Specifically, the right to be let alone.
Compromise implies forced participation.
Forced participation is exactly what leads to polarization and confrontation.
When power is concentrated into one central gov't, with one-size-fits-all solutions hammered out through compromise, the resultant conflict and polarization is unsuprising.
Whether it be one man or a revolving body of 536, despotism is despotism.
I believe the answer now is the same as it was at the beginning of the Republic:
federalism, with the central gov't having strictly limited powers.
Let the liberals, conservatives, statists, libertarians, anarchists, etc. congregate among those like-minded, indifferent, or opposed; however they choose.
Let each state try its own methods based upon the will of the people living within that state.
The results will speak for themselves.
People will vote with their feet.
Stealthed
12-01-2009, 06:32
IMHO it is not the left that will destroy America, or the right that will destroy America. It is the polarization that will destroy America. A society like ours should be built on compromise, not confrontation. But today, you have to be either right or left, and blindly so. No variation from the dogma.
I consider myself a middle of the roader and an independent. (I have learned that the real truth, at least IMHO, lies somewhere inbetween the incindeary BS of the political poles.) But being in the middle of the road is dangerous business since it is depopulated from being run over by the hard core right and left.
"My party is always right and your's is always wrong" is the between the lines reading of American politics today. I would think that was something Lenin or Hitler would say, but it doesn't surprise me anymore in American politics.
Totally agree with you sir. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm a fence sitter too :lifter
A society like ours should be built on compromise, not confrontation.
Here they like to say that "The only thing in the middle of the road in Texas politics are yellow lines and dead Armadillos."
Richard
.....I consider myself a middle of the roader and an independent. (I have learned that the real truth, at least IMHO, lies somewhere inbetween the incindeary BS of the political poles.) .....
So you agree with the libs - nobody in America should be allowed to own guns.
You just disagree with the pace of banning guns.
You believe in just a few more gun laws each year until they are all gone - just in the name of finding middle ground.
Finding middle ground means you moved OFF a position you hold.
So any congress critter can pull any old bill out of his fourth point of contact and since to be fair we must find middle ground and pass it? Every bill should be looked at, middle ground found and passed?
You draw the line at nothing?
Just wondering.
alfromcolorado
12-01-2009, 07:05
So you agree with the libs - nobody in America should be allowed to own guns.
You just disagree with the pace of banning guns.
You believe in just a few more gun laws each year until they are all gone - just in the name of finding middle ground.
Finding middle ground means you moved OFF a position you hold.
So any congress critter can pull any old bill out of his fourth point of contact and since to be fair we must find middle ground and pass it? Every bill should be looked at, middle ground found and passed?
You draw the line at nothing?
Just wondering.
Now THAT is some serious extrapolation, but is indicative of what I said in my post. It is both sides with their strict "you are either totally with us or you must be totally against us".
Since weapons seem to be your sticking point, NO, I don't believe in banning guns at all. The Second Ammendment gives you, me and anyone else that wants one the right to own it. Like cars, I don't have a problem with registering weapons and to the left I say concentrate on ILLEGAL guns and you will accomplish something constructive.
There are also some laws that still need to be challanged in the Supreme Court to be struck down... IMO.
It isn't just gun control.
Some people favor winning in Afghanistan. Others prefer withdrawal. The middle ground appears to be committing half the resources needed, thus generating nothing but a stream of American casualties.
Likewise with the death penalty. Long prison terms are not equivalent to the death penalty, as recent events in Washington (the murder of 4 police officers) illustrates.
Abortion is another example. Compromise presents a hosts of possibilities, most of them repugnant to some.
I think one might ask oneself just how far one would compromise on some issue that one believes in deeply. I am not sure it can work on things people are emotionally committed to.
Stealthed
12-01-2009, 07:18
So you agree with the libs - nobody in America should be allowed to own guns.
You just disagree with the pace of banning guns.
You believe in just a few more gun laws each year until they are all gone - just in the name of finding middle ground.
Finding middle ground means you moved OFF a position you hold.
So any congress critter can pull any old bill out of his fourth point of contact and since to be fair we must find middle ground and pass it? Every bill should be looked at, middle ground found and passed?
You draw the line at nothing?
Just wondering.
I'm a middle of the road guy but I'm pro-guns. All for em' all the way. Fence sitters tend to be people who really just tend to agree with points from both sides. I'm not a liberal or a right-wing conservative by any means. Of course people tend to lean more towards one or the other but still declare themselves as independent. I think I read somewhere a third of all voters in the U.S. are independent. Of course there's tons of other reasons I'm just giving my $.02 on the matter.
Me personally, my opinion on certain political and personal beliefs tend to coincide with both parties. I do believe both parties are becoming very skewed as time goes on. A lot of hatred there is in politics...
....Since weapons seem to be your sticking point, NO, I don't believe in banning guns at all. .......
But you do believe in finding middle ground? Just a few more gun laws this year?
Or is there a few issues you do draw the line with?
If you do draw a line in the sand with some issues why do you belittle others who have their own lines in the sand?
alfromcolorado
12-01-2009, 07:21
It isn't just gun control.
Some people favor winning in Afghanistan. Others prefer withdrawal. The middle ground appears to be committing half the resources needed, thus generating nothing but a stream of American casualties.
Who has favored winning in Afghanistan since 2003? This mess didn't just pop up in JAN 09. I think one of the biggest problems is that the general public and many in the military do not understand COIN and no one has or is educating them to it. But I stray from the thread here...
Likewise with the death penalty. Long prison terms are not equivalent to the death penalty, as recent events in Washington (the murder of 4 police officers) illustrates.
I don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime and trying to use it as one is a waste of time. BUT, it is a cure for what ails them.
Abortion is another example. Compromise presents a hosts of possibilities, most of them repugnant to some.
Abortion should be a moral issue settled within the family.
I think one might ask oneself just how far one would compromise on some issue that one believes in deeply. I am not sure it can work on things people are emotionally committed to.
Everyone has issues that they will not compromise on. the problem is that no one wants to compromise on ANYTHING anymore. And a system based on democracy is about consensus and majority rule, not revolution because I don't get my way on everything...
See comments in red since this system wouldn't let me post this by embedded comments. Edited by Richard - red is too hard on the 'old eyes.' ;)
alfromcolorado
12-01-2009, 07:26
But you do believe in finding middle ground? Just a few more gun laws this year?
Or is there a few issues you do draw the line with?
If you do draw a line in the sand with some issues why do you belittle others who have their own lines in the sand?
I am not belittling anyone. I stated MY opinion of what the problems are. Not that people draw the line on some issues, but that people more and more are not willing to compromise on anything.
We are becoming more and more polarized as time passes and that has spelt the end of several civilizations.
...... Not that people draw the line on some issues, but that people more and more are not willing to compromise on anything........
Duh......
Compromise means no line in the sand - it means finding middle ground on the issue.
Gun Control?
Abortion?
Taxes? How about that welfare payment of the EIT credit?
Government size?
One side says YES the other side says NO - show me the middle ground on a YES/NO question.
I don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime and trying to use it as one is a waste of time. BUT, it is a cure for what ails them.
It is a deterrent to those that are executed.
We are becoming more and more polarized as time passes and that has spelt the end of several civilizations.
Historically speaking - I doubt that we're any more or less polarized than we've always been - just seemingly less willing (as has happened at several points in our nation's history) to pragmatically compromise when a partial success would be better than a total loss for everyone concerned.
Personally - I worry over the impact of the WWW and the "Winning isn't everything...it's the only thing!" attitude in regards to this and many other matters.
As for compromise - I'm pretty much in agreement with Alfromcolorado's opinions in response to nmap's post.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It is a deterrent to those that are executed.
That's what alfromcolorado said - "BUT, it is a cure for what ails them."
Richard
Stealthed
12-01-2009, 07:58
Duh......
Compromise means no line in the sand - it means finding middle ground on the issue.
Gun Control?
Abortion?
Taxes? How about that welfare payment of the EIT credit?
Government size?
One side says YES the other side says NO - show me the middle ground on a YES/NO question.
Gun Control - No (Gun carrying, law abiding citizens don't kill people... felons, convicts and thugs with illegally purchased guns kill people.)
Abortion - Yes (Tends to be a religious issue, and I'm not religious. This one could go either way with me.)
Taxes - N/A (Not well versed on what to do with taxes :confused:) I'm all for low taxes and keeping my money :D
Government Size - Small (I don't really understand how you could want a huge government, but whatever.) One thing we do have for sure is a POWERFUL government. Doesn't matter which party is in control.
Health Care - Everyone should have access to health care, period. I don't understand how anyone can dispute that statement. But how can anyone REALLY understand the whole health care bill. Have you seen the size of it?
Death Penalty - Sure why not. Some crimes are so heinous in my opinion it warrants it. If it was banned I wouldn't care too much.
Legalize Marijuana - Compare it with alcohol and tell me which is worse. How much money could states make off taxing it? A lot.
Did I like the Bush Administration? No
Do I like the Obama Administration? No
My meager $.02
That's what alfromcolorado said - "BUT, it is a cure for what ails them."
Richard
When you take into account the recidivism rate of released prisoners, to include violent sex offenders, life in prison without parole or the death penalty (where appropriate) would deter crime. It would ensure that the most violent criminals never again had a chance to destroy the lives of the innocent.
In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm
Stealthed
12-01-2009, 08:05
When you take into account the recidivism rate of released prisoners, to include violent sex offenders, life in prison without parole or the death penalty (where appropriate) would deter crime. It would ensure that the most violent criminals never again had a chance to destroy the lives of the innocent.
In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm
I agree sir, a lot of convicts/felons continue to re-offend when given plenty of chances to shape up and if its in the realm of rape/murder... give em' sparky.
When you take into account the recidivism rate of released prisoners, to include violent sex offenders, life in prison without parole or the death penalty (where appropriate) would deter crime. It would ensure that the most violent criminals never again had a chance to destroy the lives of the innocent.
In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm
The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years, 51.8% of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole.
I'm not sure about that interpretation of the data - wonder why they don't give the exact % between these two? :confused:
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
I'm pretty much in agreement with Richard and alfromcolorado... and growing weary of the 'us verses them' within our country.
Who has favored winning in Afghanistan since 2003? This mess didn't just pop up in JAN 09. I think one of the biggest problems is that the general public and many in the military do not understand COIN and no one has or is educating them to it. But I stray from the thread here...
If I may say so, this offers a perfect example. Perhaps we can explore the specific issue a bit in order to better illuminate the general principle.
My opinion - subject to revision in light of more information - is that most people are not emotionally engaged with the Afghanistan issue. There are those who have strong views on each side of the question. And, just as you suggest, most people don't understand COIN - me, among them. However, lack of information does not seem to prevent strong opinions.
The specific issue, according to my understanding, still stands. One can win, one can walk away, or one can choose a middle strategy that is worse than either extreme. It is my perspective that politicians of all persuasions have chosen that middle ground in an effort to compromise - an effort to avoid facing the strong views of either side. Educating the masses about COIN is probably asking too much of our politicians, and perhaps of the public as well.
As we expand the principle to the general case, it seems to me that there are a variety of things that function according to the same principle.
It also occurs to me that we need a reason to compromise. Let us suppose that you and I wish to have lunch. I want one thing. You want something else. In the interest of having a mutually satisfying lunch we negotiate, we compromise, and we come to a meeting of the minds.
But let us suppose a different scenario. Let us suppose a 'line in the sand" issue, whatever that might be. Now the cost of compromise is that we turn our back on some principle that is very important to us. And what is the cost of failure to compromise? If we suppose that it will rip the country apart, then are we not suggesting that the nation is rather fragile? So, then, a serious question.
What do I gain by abandoning my principles on some issue I'm committed to?
Until a consensus develops that the gain (whatever it might be) is more important than any set of personal principles, then I don't see much incentive to compromise.
Health Care - Everyone should have access to health care, period. I don't understand how anyone can dispute that statement. But how can anyone REALLY understand the whole health care bill. Have you seen the size of it?
Really? (please imagine an evil grin).
In San Antonio, we have a variety of excellent hospitals - some have emergency rooms. Those emergency rooms are constantly packed, with wait times often exceeding 4 hours. Why? Because the law requires the hospitals to treat anyone who shows up at an emergency room without regard to ability to pay. The taxpayers get to cover the cost.
Here's an excerpt from an article:
Integrated Care Collaboration determined that the nine patients in Central Texas “cost hospitals, taxpayers, and others $3 million,” according to The Austin American-Statesman.
One of the people spent 145 days in the emergency room in 2008, and visited 554 times from 2003 through 2008.
Ann Kitchen, executive director of ICC, a group of hospitals and other care providers that treat uninsured and low-income populations in Central Texas, said her group “looked at frequent users of emergency departments … and that’s the extreme.”
LINK (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/2009/april/9-Patients-Account-for-Nearly-2-700-Visits-to-the-Emergency-Room--Study-Finds-.html)
One faces the problem of how far the commitment goes. The following are purely rhetorical questions...they serve only as examples of the scope of the problem.
Should late-stage Alzheimer's patients receive heroic efforts to sustain life?
Should illegal aliens receive care? How much?
Should convicted felons in prison receive organ transplants?
In the end, society practices a form of triage. Some will get better with minimal help. Some will get better with substantial help. Some will hold on to life a little while as long as you pump money into them. But at some point, one must make the hard decision - and that individual will die. Therein lies the point of contention.
Animal8526
12-01-2009, 12:39
Not sure what exactly is meant by this.
Compromise just means everyone gets to be unhappy.
IMO, a society like ours should be built on respect of boundaries.
Specifically, the right to be let alone.
Compromise implies forced participation.
Forced participation is exactly what leads to polarization and confrontation.
When power is concentrated into one central gov't, with one-size-fits-all solutions hammered out through compromise, the resultant conflict and polarization is unsuprising.
Whether it be one man or a revolving body of 536, despotism is despotism.
I believe the answer now is the same as it was at the beginning of the Republic:
federalism, with the central gov't having strictly limited powers.
Let the liberals, conservatives, statists, libertarians, anarchists, etc. congregate among those like-minded, indifferent, or opposed; however they choose.
Let each state try its own methods based upon the will of the people living within that state.
The results will speak for themselves.
People will vote with their feet.
this is the truth I have come to believe.
For what my two cents are worth, I agree with Richard, alfromcolorado, and KolB.
IMO, finding the middle ground does not necessarily imply moving off of a position that you hold but determining what policy objectives are most important and then finding imaginative ways to meet those objectives.
IIRC, the great compromises in this nation's political history linked controversial options so that different sides gave a little to get a lot more. (Not for nothing did Donald Cole walk his students through Federalist no. 10 and do some scholars of American political history still celebrate the Great Triumvirate: Calhoun, Clay, and Webster.)
MOO, it is not the left or the right that is undoing American political life. It is the blogosphere itself.
Team Sergeant
12-01-2009, 16:12
For what my two cents are worth, I agree with Richard, alfromcolorado, and KolB.
IMO, finding the middle ground does not necessarily imply moving off of a position that you hold but determining what policy objectives are most important and then finding imaginative ways to meet those objectives.
IIRC, the great compromises in this nation's political history linked controversial options so that different sides gave a little to get a lot more. (Not for nothing did Donald Cole walk his students through Federalist no. 10 and do some scholars of American political history still celebrate the Great Triumvirate: Calhoun, Clay, and Webster.)
MOO, it is not the left or the right that is undoing American political life. It is the blogosphere itself.
We agree on something..... and it's that same blogsphere that got an extremely junior, no experience senator elected.....
Maybe that same blogsphere can undo some of the damage.
And, IMO, the blogsphere does not polarize individuals their ideology and tribal beliefs do.
alfromcolorado
12-01-2009, 18:44
Not sure what exactly is meant by this.
Compromise just means everyone gets to be unhappy.
I believe the answer now is the same as it was at the beginning of the Republic:
federalism, with the central gov't having strictly limited powers.
Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that replaced them were several compromises in an effort to build consensus for an enduring Union.
alfromcolorado
12-01-2009, 18:46
MOO, it is not the left or the right that is undoing American political life. It is the blogosphere itself.
Can't argue with that. It definitely gets folks churned up.
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2009, 20:04
Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that replaced them were several compromises in an effort to build consensus for an enduring Union.
Fair enough.
However, critical elements of those compromises are now gone.
The compromises have been compromised.
-The 14th amendment, while necessary for Reconstruction, is now just redundant with the provisions of most state constitutions and serves only to be a beachhead for federal intrusion.
-The contemporary interpretation of the commerce clause effectively undermines the entire purpose of our Constitution.
-The 17th amendment is another direct swipe at the original purpose of our Constitution.
-The 16th amendment feeds and grows the problem that our Constitution was designed to prevent.
Compromise assumes both parties are bargaining in good faith and aren't just positioning themselves for future advantage.
I used to demonstrate the problems with compromise for my students:
I'd ask them: "What would you say if I told you 2+2= 6?"
They objected and said 2+2=4
I'd keep arguing with them and getting them worked up.
Then I would offer a compromise: 2+2=5
They wouldn't agree.
I would accuse them of being unreasonable.
Then I would offer further compromise and say 2+2=4.5
Eventually they understood that compromise requires bargaining in good faith.
When I compromise, it's "win/win" or "no deal".
True federalism gives the option of "no deal".
Compromise other than "win/win" is nothing more than a glorified cease-fire.
Fair enough.
However, critical elements of those compromises are now gone.
The compromises have been compromised.
Are you sure? What about:
the Great Compromise?
the separation of war powers between the legislative and the executive branches?
the Bill of Rights?
...the entire purpose of our Constitution.
-The 17th amendment is another direct swipe at the original purpose of our Constitution.
-The 16th amendment feeds and grows the problem that our Constitution was designed to prevent...I think it would be more accurate historically if one were to speak of the intent of some supporters of the Constitution as opposed to arguing that there was a broadly held consensus as to what the Constitution meant to all Americans at the time of its ratification. YMMV.
Compromise assumes both parties are bargaining in good faith and aren't just positioning themselves for future advantage.
I used to demonstrate the problems with compromise for my students:
I'd ask them: "What would you say if I told you 2+2= 6?"
They objected and said 2+2=4
I'd keep arguing with them and getting them worked up.
Then I would offer a compromise: 2+2=5
They wouldn't agree.
I would accuse them of being unreasonable.
Then I would offer further compromise and say 2+2=4.5
Eventually they understood that compromise requires bargaining in good faith.
When I compromise, it's "win/win" or "no deal".
True federalism gives the option of "no deal".Your take on good faith as a requirement for compromise flies in the face of our understanding of the political history of the early Republic.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists differed on many points of the proposed Constitution--not the least of which was the importance of a sea-going navy--but one can find broad agreement on politics as an arena for competition among certain men for differing interests. <<LINK (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm)>>
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2009, 21:05
Are you sure? What about:
the Great Compromise?
the separation of war powers between the legislative and the executive branches?
the Bill of Rights?
I think it would be more accurate historically if one were to speak of the intent of some supporters of the Constitution as opposed to arguing that there was a broadly held consensus as to what the Constitution meant to all Americans at the time of its ratification. YMMV.
Your take on good faith as a requirement for compromise flies in the face of our understanding of the political history of the early Republic.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists differed on many points of the proposed Constitution--not the least of which was the importance of a sea-going navy--but one can find broad agreement on politics as an arena for competition among certain men for differing interests. <<LINK (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm)>>
I offer nolo contendere to many of your points.
Boiling it down to one:
I don't wish to compromise in certain areas.
Many of my fellow citizens feel the same.
Other citizens hold positions in certain issues which are mutually exclusive with the positions some of my fellow citizens and I hold.
Here is a compromise:
Let the federal government butt out.
Let like-minded individuals of all persuasions gather in the states most consistent with their own views.
Personally, I tend conservative.
Politically, I tend libertarian.
This nation is big enough for us all.
To each his own.
Concerning right-wing rhetoric:
Certain political persuasions are using the federal government to impose their will upon others.
They do so at their own peril.
Some people are willing to die for their beliefs.
Some are willing to kill.
The right to be let alone is the root of the matter.
This is mutually exclusive with forced participation in a grand compromise.
The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years, 51.8% of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole.
I'm not sure about that interpretation of the data - wonder why they don't give the exact % between these two? :confused:
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Richard,
The statistic you pulled from the report is a bit misleading. For those that are interested, the two studies on the recidivism rates of prisoners released in 1983 and 1994 are attached. Hijack over.
Original posted by Stealthed:
I'm a middle of the road guy but I'm pro-guns. All for em' all the way. Fence sitters tend to be people who really just tend to agree with points from both sides. I'm not a liberal or a right-wing conservative by any means. Of course people tend to lean more towards one or the other but still declare themselves as independent. I think I read somewhere a third of all voters in the U.S. are independent. Of course there's tons of other reasons I'm just giving my $.02 on the matter…..Health Care - Everyone should have access to health care, period. I don't understand how anyone can dispute that statement. But how can anyone REALLY understand the whole health care bill. Have you seen the size of it?
I believe the above post is a good example of why there is polarization. Stealthed considers himself a middle of the road guy, but believes everyone should have access to health care, period. I assuming he means whether or not they can personally pay for their healthcare. I would contend this is not a middle of the road position, unless the liberals have moved so far to the left, this has become the new middle. Please note, universal health care was rejected during the Clinton administration. If it is truly a middle of the road position, the middle has moved significantly during the last nine years. I would also contend that most beliefs held by conservatives today are consistent with those expressed many years ago by Ronald Reagan, and that any great distance between the left and the right has been caused by the left growing more liberal. Should a conservative follow the liberals in their leftward journey just to diminish the great divide between us? If they are the ones moving, are they not creating a greater distance between ideologies?
Stealthed, when you express your opinion and end it with the phrase, “period” that doesn’t sound like you are open to compromise or to discussion of the pertinent issues. This leads in my mind to polarization.
To illustrate, I contend the current administration and the liberals of today do not want any discussion of issues. They cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with them and attempt to silence them through heavy handed tactics, etc. Look at what they tried to do to Fox news. Look at their response to the tea parties. Also look at the intellectual dishonesty perpetrated on behalf of climate change. There is great polarization because the current administration and liberals will brook no other opinions but their own, will not enter into honest discussion of the issues and will lie and slander others to reach their goals. Now they use the polarization issue to silence any dissenting opinion. If they truly want to reduce polarization, have them amend or soften their positions, period. :D
Boiling it down to one:
I don't wish to compromise in certain areas.
Many of my fellow citizens feel the same.
Other citizens hold positions in certain issues which are mutually exclusive with the positions some of my fellow citizens and I hold.
Here is a compromise:
Let the federal government butt out.
Let like-minded individuals of all persuasions gather in the states most consistent with their own views.
Personally, I tend conservative.
Politically, I tend libertarian.
This nation is big enough for us all.
To each his own.
Concerning right-wing rhetoric:
Certain political persuasions are using the federal government to impose their will upon others.
They do so at their own peril.
Some people are willing to die for their beliefs.
Some are willing to kill.
The right to be let alone is the root of the matter.
This is mutually exclusive with forced participation in a grand compromise.
Hmmm...ever heard of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and where they led us? :confused: The revolutionary and early government periods of the USofA makes for some interesting reading.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
12-05-2009, 21:44
Hmmm...ever heard of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and where they led us? :confused: The revolutionary and early government periods of the USofA makes for some interesting reading.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Well aware.
Also acknowledge that isolationism at a local or global level will never happen again.
However, at this point in history, we're looking at a choice of evils.
A drastic action like scrapping the commerce clause could have some negative consequences.
As power continues to centralize, drastic action such as that may be necessary to right the ship.
Not saying that returning to broad dispersment of authority is a permanent solution, just saying it may be a necessary step to avoid worse alternatives.
Irishsquid
12-06-2009, 01:19
I don't believe in compromise, at least on the things that truly matter to me. I'm against abortion, at least in some instances, but don't really care enough to fight about it. Gun control, on the other hand...well, I believe I should be able to walk into a gun store, without any sort of permit or license, and with no records of any kind kept, and purchase a suppressed or full-auto weapons. Not willing to compromise on that.
Taxes...100% in support of any and all tax-cuts. Not willing to compromise.
Small government...I think 90% of all Federal agencies should be shut down immediately, and the ones that remain should have far better oversight. Not willing to compromise.
Adherence to what the constitution says, as opposed to some "living document," concept...I support that, no compromise.
Government staying the hell out of my business, just as long as I don't hurt anyone...I'm a fan. No compromise.
I don't understand how anyone could think it would be good for me to compromise on ANY of these, since they are, in fact, strongly held beliefs. That said, I'm not going to get up-in-arms over things I don't hold a STRONG opinion about.
Well aware.
Also acknowledge that isolationism at a local or global level will never happen again.
However, at this point in history, we're looking at a choice of evils.
A drastic action like scrapping the commerce clause could have some negative consequences.
As power continues to centralize, drastic action such as that may be necessary to right the ship.
Not saying that returning to broad [dispersion] of authority is a permanent solution, just saying it may be a necessary step to avoid worse alternatives.GC--
I'm just checking to see if I'm reading your post correctly. My reading of your comment is that you envision a pendulum of sorts that arcs across a spectrum. Towards one end of the spectrum, federal power declines as the authority of individual states increases. At the other, the relationship is reversed. Is this what you mean or am I off the mark?:confused:
Is it your position that there are conditions/circumstances under which strong centralized authority is appropriate but now is not such a time?
If now is not an appropriate time, could you elaborate why you think so?
However, at this point in history, we're looking at a choice of evils.MOO--worth two cents and nothing more--I'm not entirely sure that we're standing at the crossroads of history where every path is shadowed by darkness. The current president attempted to make this argument during his campaign and it did not resonate (at least his version didn't).
Again, just my $0.02.
I'm not entirely sure that we're standing at the crossroads of history where every path is shadowed by darkness. The current president attempted to make this argument during his campaign and it did not resonate (at least his version didn't).
That's a very nicely turned phrase! I happen to think that every likely path is shadowed by darkness, but that surely comes as no surprise.
I think you'll find that the argument rarely (never?) resonates with the general population. They don't want to believe it, whatever the supposed source of doom might be - so no matter what the arguments might be, and no matter how well crafted, people will reject them. (Among doomers, such folks are called "cornies" - short for cornucopians. :p )
Perhaps its best that way. After all, it lets me accumulate what I want with less competition. :cool:
GratefulCitizen
12-07-2009, 22:46
GC--
Is it your position that there are conditions/circumstances under which strong centralized authority is appropriate but now is not such a time?
No.
It is my position that centralized authority (of whatever scale) can only be stable if there exists sufficient trust between groups with diametrically opposed viewpoints.
In order to reestablish such trust, I believe it may be necessary to allow groups with vastly different views "cities of refuge" from each other.
An overpowering central government does not allow such refuge.
Power dispersed among the several states does allow such refuge, and still allows for (I would argue "encourages") mutually beneficial interdependence.
Whether it be one man against another or one nation against another, conflict will always escalate if there is no safe retreat.
I don't believe in compromise, at least on the things that truly matter to me.
<<SNIP>>
I don't understand how anyone could think it would be good for me to compromise on ANY of these, since they are, in fact, strongly held beliefs. That said, I'm not going to get up-in-arms over things I don't hold a STRONG opinion about.FWIW, I think this post illustrates that a huge challenge today is that there's a wide range of views on what it means "to compromise."
When self-described moderates such as myself say "let's work on finding a compromise policy," people with unmistakable integrity may take that to mean "Let's find ways to compromise your principles."
IMO, that is not the mindset many moderates bring to the dance. Here, I differentiate between political moderation and political pragmatism. To me, being a moderate reflects a sensibility conveniently summarized by America's muse--and maybe the only person in America unequivocally shorter than I--as follows.
1. It is possible to discuss differences of opinion in a friendly, respectful way.
2. There are good people of every political stripe, all with good reasons for believing the way they do.*From this viewpoint, "compromise" is about using the full spectrum of American political, social, cultural, religious, intellectual, and economic life to find innovative solutions for the country's problems even if it appears that Americans have irreconcilable differences. (In which case, it is time to create new knowledge.)
Then again, my two cents is about $3.73 short of a tall mocha.
That's a very nicely turned phrase! Nmap, thank you for the compliment. I would be remiss to point out that I was thinking of Tolkien when the phrase came to mind. No.
It is my position that centralized authority (of whatever scale) can only be stable if there exists sufficient trust between groups with diametrically opposed viewpoints.
In order to reestablish such trust, I believe it may be necessary to allow groups with vastly different views "cities of refuge" from each other.
An overpowering central government does not allow such refuge.
Power dispersed among the several states does allow such refuge, and still allows for (I would argue "encourages") mutually beneficial interdependence.
Whether it be one man against another or one nation against another, conflict will always escalate if there is no safe retreat.GC--
Thank you for the clarification.
I think your formulation presents a Catch-22 of sorts. If two parties do not trust each other and one withdraws, what is to keep the other party from seizing the opportunity to press its agenda?
If I'm following your thoughts, the crucial element seems to be the notion of a "safe retreat." IMO, a requisite of this withdrawal is that the option should protect the dignity of all involved as well as the process itself. And then re-engagement would follow only after some fence mending and mutual confidence building.
_______________________________________________
* Kristin Chenoweth with Joni Rodgers, A Little Bit Wicked: Life, Love, and Faith in Stages (ISBN-13 9781416580553), p. 20.
GratefulCitizen
12-08-2009, 18:11
I think your formulation presents a Catch-22 of sorts. If two parties do not trust each other and one withdraws, what is to keep the other party from seizing the opportunity to press its agenda?
Broad distribution of power prevents such opportunism.
Too much centralized power + 2-party system encourages such opportunism.
If I'm following your thoughts, the crucial element seems to be the notion of a "safe retreat." IMO, a requisite of this withdrawal is that the option should protect the dignity of all involved as well as the process itself. And then re-engagement would follow only after some fence mending and mutual confidence building.
This was something I learned during my years herding drunks in a night club.
If someone feels they can't retreat with dignity, they'll go down fighting, no matter how bad the odds are.
If they have an option of retreat where they can keep their dignity (or a reasonable degree thereof) they'll often take it.
This concept presents a problem when it comes to some "cultures of honor".
Any sort of retreat is considered a loss of dignity.
Typically, this will result in scorched-earth and/or annihilation as the only resolutions. :(
_______________________________________________
* Kristin Chenoweth with Joni Rodgers, A Little Bit Wicked: Life, Love, and Faith in Stages (ISBN-13 9781416580553), p. 20.[/QUOTE]