Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama's fantasy of a bipartisan utopia inside the Beltway has been mugged by reality, to borrow a popular neoconservative expression, and not a moment too soon.
It wasn't for lack of trying--Obama repeatedly wooed House Republicans only to have them vote unanimously against his stimulus bill. He loaded up the legislation with tax cuts and cut popular spending provisions and still only three Senate Republicans voted aye. He named a conservative Republican as his Commerce Secretary--the third Republican in his cabinet--only for Judd Gregg to turn around and cite irreconcilable ideological differences, withdrawing without even giving the White House a proper heads up.
The Obama team has finally learned their lesson. Remember when President Bush said "we can't negotiate with terrorists?" Well, the same goes for much of the GOP. (No, I'm not comparing the Republican Party to Al Qaeda, simply pointing out that most of the Republicans that remain in Congress represent conservative states and conservative districts and thus have little incentive to cooperate with Obama, although it does turn out that Texas Republican Pete Sessions recently compared his caucus to the Taliban.) As Rahm Emanuel admitted last night, "There's an insatiable appetite for the notion of bipartisanship here and we allowed that to get ahead of ourselves."
But while the public wants the two parties to work together when possible, the election provided a huge mandate for Obama and his fellow Democrats and a striking rejection of GOP policies. Republicans vociferously campaigned against "one party rule" and the argument fell on deaf ears. The public wasn't voting for Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary or huge tax cuts for business in the stimulus bill, they were voting for good jobs, universal healthcare, a better environment and an end to the war in Iraq.
As George Packer pointed out in a brilliant New Yorker piece, there's always been a conflict between "the 'post-partisan' Obama and the 'progressive' Obama." Is he for the type of small compromises that can win widespread bipartisan support or will he push ahead with bold, sweeping and necessary changes, no matter what the opposition says? Will he really fight to reduce the power of lobbyists and big business in Washington or will he cozy up to the establishment and grant them waivers to join his administration? Will he rein in Wall Street or allow them to continue to run wild? We've seen a bit of both recently but thus far things have definitely skewed in the "post-partisan" direction and the results have been anything but harmonious.
"The Obama administration keeps having to learn that bland centrism is not pragmatic, that it's not helpful in resolving a big crisis and that it certainly doesn't buy you any love," EJ Dionne wrote in the Washington Post this week. "Washington has become too concerned with appearances and with calculating the distance from some arbitrary midpoint in any given debate. The sensible center should be defined by what works, even if that means discovering that the true middle ground isn't where we thought it was."
UPDATE: To reinforce my point, check out these polling numbers on the stimulus. According to Gallup, 67 percent of the public approves of the way Obama handled the bill, while 58 percent disapproved of Republicans in Congress. CBS found that 81 percent of the public believes Obama was seeking bipartisanship but only 41 percent feel the same way about the GOP. While DC pundits proclaimed that Obama was losing the spin war, Gallup found that Americans support the stimulus by a healthy margin of 59-33 percent, including 1 in 4 Republicans. Too bad those Republicans don't have a voice in Congress.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
BERMAN" "Barack Obama's fantasy...."
Right out, you're admitting that The One was and is still, NAIVE, no?
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2009 @ 11:25am
The person who killed off Obamas partisianship efforts was Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/13/2009 @ 11:25am
Welcome to the land of two parties, along with their primary systems that reward the extremes.
More parties
IRV voting.
a good place to start.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 11:27am
It seems there wasn't ever much support for bipartisanship from the Left either.
Every centrist appointed was cause for a cry of "sell-out"...any Republican appointed a "right-wing ideologue who has no place at the table".
Any moves to the Middle invoking screams from both the pure progressive bloggers and much of the "TN" staff.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 11:31am
HAPPY, go sell some cigars to pre-school kids.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 11:32am
Here's another "Reality"! I've dropped all the postings from pundits and/or media sources considered right-wing, leaving these......has the Magic indeed been unMASKed?
February 13, 2009
Real Clear Politics Friday
Gregg Surprise Embarrasses White House - George Stephanopoulos, ABC
The Worst-Case Scenario - David Brooks, New York Times
Will the Stimulus Actually Stimulate? - Kevin Hall, McClatchy
Gregg's Gone... And Rightly So - John Nichols, The Nation
Why His Withdrawal Hurts Obama - Toby Harnden, Daily Telegraph
Obama Stimulus Tactics Echo Bush's on War - Jacob Sullum, Chicago ST
Why is Obama Reluctant to Kill Zombie Banks? - Arianna Huffington, HP
The Fear of Fear Itself is Upon Us - Chuck Raasch, USA Today
Too Little in Return for Stimulus Plan - Los Angeles Times
A Fiscal Gamble - Washington Post
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2009 @ 11:33am
things were so much better when paulson was president.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2009 @ 11:37am
P.S. wrt: The Worst-Case Scenario - David Brooks, New York Times
David Brooks WAS right-wing and is somewhere in the wilderness....left him in the mix....good article but don't read it IF you're already depressed or support (the fading) Magic!
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2009 @ 11:37am
Obama is masterfully calling the right-wing bluff... by exposing their 'differences'...
Obama calmly reiterates... "we're all in this together"
The right-wing shouts hysterically... "You all are going to do it our way... or else... we'll blow up ourselves, and the whole world too"...
The President may have to send the cons to their room... for their infantile antics... after they've made their case crystal clear.
Posted by ttr at 02/13/2009 @ 11:40am
things were so much better when paulson was president.-----Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2009 @ 11:37am
Again, FROSTY, you do realize that's a right-wing meme?
Gets poor ol' helpless Dubya off the hook for all that "socialism"!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 11:43am
We have a party, the repubs, who have systematically tried since Reagan, to completely destroy all aspects of the New Deal.
If we as Progressives admit the enemy into our tent, how can we even preserve, let alone advance our own agenda?
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 11:46am
"BUSH WAS NO CONSERVATIVE
I DID NOT LIKE HIM."
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/13/2009 @ 11:12am
History will treat Bush well, though. It is only the "fringe left" that does not like his policies.
Welcome to the fringe left, Johnny.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 11:50am
Renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting that they pass away. -- Aitken Roshi
Making friends with new con blood sucking ticks is sweet if you're a Buddhist, but COME ON, they'll drain you dry if you let them. They've proven what they 'can do' for our great nation-- destroy it, destroy 'We the people'.
I give Obama a pat on the back for trying. I do the same thing with fellow workers, but there are a few that really aren't team players. They never will be. They want their own little fiefdom that just drains productivity of our overall goals DOW'nward for the benefit of a the very few and powerful.
America must renounce new con repub blood sucking ticks forever.
BTW:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BobLuskin.pdf
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 12:18pm
BTW, that Pete Sessions (R-TX) is a hoot.
I wonder if we've discovered what district RIO/comanche is from? It would take a lot like RIO to elect that doofus.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 12:18pm
BTW, that Pete Sessions (R-TX) is a hoot
What did he do/say?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 12:22pm
Gallup found that Americans support the stimulus by a healthy margin of 59-33 percent, including 1 in 4 Republicans. Too bad those Republicans don't have a voice in Congress.
This only proves that you can fool the American people with a lot of smoke and mirrors. If anyone actually bothered to read the legislation, they would probably join both the right and the left who equally disdain this bill.
It seems the only ones who are buying it as something good are those who are accepting it simply because Obama proclaims it good.
that is dangerous to democracy and will end up hurting both the American people and Obama's political future.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:33pm
rio lives in oklahoma.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2009 @ 12:36pm
Perhaps some of you on the left (besides B Kool) ought to read other leftist sources to see some alternative perspective on the Obama plans
From Democracy Now 2/13 with Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson
Michael Hudson, let's begin with you here in New York. Why do you think that Obama's financial recovery plan is "awful"?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Because it's not leading to recovery at all. It's now up to $12 trillion. It's a giveaway to the banks, to the creditors, without a single penny for actual debt reduction. And I had thought that at least half a percentage point, $50 billion, was going to be to write down troubled mortgage debtors, but it turns out that not a penny of mortgage debt is going to be written down.
If people have to pay the amount of debt that they have now, there won't be any money to buy goods and services, companies will not sell as much, they'll invest less, they'll hire less, and they'll continue to downsize.
And what's happened is that this is the greatest transfer of wealth really in American history. It's doubled the American debt. The closest parallel I can think of is William the Conqueror's conquest of England. He came with a military band, conquered the land and imposed taxes over the whole land, basing it all on the Domesday Book, what--the rent could be squeezed out. In this case, the rip-off has been non-military. The bankers have done insider dealing to get the government to give them or guarantee them $12 trillion of bad loans they've made, many of them fraudulent.
continued
Hudson's article on Counterpunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02122009.html
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:47pm
ROBERT KUTTNER: But I do think that the plan does not go nearly far enough and, in some respects, is just completely wrongheaded.
You asked the question, why we're not doing it right. The problem is political. On the one hand, Obama has hired a lot of Bob Rubin's protégés, who aren't even advocating the right policy. On the other hand, the Republicans are stonewalling him across the board. And so people like Susan Collins, senator from Maine, who are pretty conservative get to block this thing. The only way to end this blockage is for Obama to go to the country and to become a lot more radical, because the times demand radical solutions.
http://tinyurl.com/d8xz23
So Nation bloggers, it seems you are out of step with progressive economists and thinkers who believe the Obama plan is terrible.
Conservatives likewise oppose it for different reasons, yet it is only conservatives you attack for disliking this bill.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:49pm
"So Nation bloggers, it seems you are out of step with progressive economists and thinkers who believe the Obama plan is terrible."
Posted by antisocialist at 12:49pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/13/2009 @ 1:14pm
This only proves that you can fool the American people with a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:33pm
Is that why new con repub blood sucking ticks lost big time November 2008
- or -
why the nation got so screwed by 12 years of a repub majority in congress and 8 years of hsuB/cHeney admin
?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 1:20pm
Oops.....
I meant to add here that the "plan" Kuttner and Hudson discuss broadly refers to both the stimulus and TARP --and it should be clear that the real bugaboo that has raised their ire is the TARP's lack of relief for homeowners specifically.
Writ large, the issue is Obama's kowtowing to Wall Street which is hamstringing him at least as badly as the Republican Party's numnuts --which accounts for approximately 95% of their party.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/13/2009 @ 1:20pm
are you sugesting that a party listen to dissenters?
The neo-cons seem to have done more 180's than Shawn White, since Nov 5 2008.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 1:25pm
Another similar view from Paul Craig Roberts whom the left loves to quote
"When economies tank, as the American one is doing, tax revenues collapse. The millions of unemployed Americans are not paying Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes. The stores and businesses that are closing are not paying federal and state income taxes. Consumers with no money or credit to spend are not paying sales taxes.
The Washington Morons, and morons they are, have given no thought as to how they are going to finance a fiscal year 2009 budget deficit of some two to three trillion dollars.
The practically nonexistent US saving rate cannot finance it.
The trade surpluses of our trading partners, such as China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, cannot finance it.
The US government really has only two possibilities for financing its budget deficit. One is a second collapse in the stock market, which would drive the surviving investors with what they have left into "safe" US Treasury bonds. The other is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the Treasury debt.
Monetizing the debt means that when no one is willing or able to purchase the Treasury's bonds, the Federal Reserve buys them by creating bank deposits for the Treasury's account.
In other words, the Fed "prints money" with which to buy the Treasury's bonds.
Once this happens, the US dollar will cease to be the reserve currency.
The US dollar will become worthless, the currency of a banana republic."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02092009.html
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:26pm
And another from the left who derides the current Democratic thinking
"I admit, the stimulus package will have some positive effects on employment but it won't create nearly as many jobs as advertised. Simply, too much is wasted on political agendas, special interests and good old fashion political payoffs. After the money is spent, rebated and squandered, the economy will slip back into recession, because President Obama's economists don't counsel him to fix what is really broke--the ownership structures and compensation schemes at U.S. banks in the post-Glass Steagall era, and the huge trade deficit on oil and with China that sap demand for American made goods and services and put workers on the unemployment line. In any case, the leadership in Congress does not want to genuinely tackle banking and trade issues--that would upset too many powerful contributors in Wall Street banks, the Silicon Valley and Hollywood.
Senators representing those constituencies are all too happy to rail against Wall Street bonuses and Chinese currency manipulation, and extol the virtues of fuel efficient vehicles on Sunday morning talk shows and in town meetings, but nothing truly meaningful to fix the structure and compensation policies of the banks, the energy efficiency of America's fleet of automobiles, or the ruinous trade deficit with China will likley pass the Senate this year. Sophistry, nay hypocrisy, reigns supreme on Mount Olympus, as the nation's economy falls into tatters.
Peter Morici is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former chief economist at the United States International Trade Commission."
http://www.counterpunch.org/morici02032009.html
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:36pm
This is fun; there seems to be an endless supply of leftists deriding Obama and the Dems "stimulus". Here's Dave Lindorff
"Obviously the Obama administration recognizes that it needs to keep the finger of blame for the current economic collapse squarely pointed at the Bush administration, which is certainly fair in large part (though the Clinton deregulation of the banking industry played a major part in the financial crisis and its enthusiastic promotion of globalization began the massive shift of jobs overseas that has left the nation's productive capacity hollowed out). But it also seems to recognize that it cannot tell the bitter truth, which is that our national economy will never "bounce back" to where it was in 2007.
Eventually, the economic slide will hit bottom and begin its slow climb back, as all recessions do, but there will be no return to the days of $500,000 McMansion developments, three-car garages and a new car every two or three years for both parents plus a car for each highschooler. Not only will banks no longer be able to offer such credit to clients. People, having been burned, will not be willing to borrow so much. Company health care benefits, pension programs or 401(k) matching programs that were slashed during this downturn will not be restored when the economy picks up again.
The administration could start by telling us all this straight up, but the problem is, most of us probably don't want to hear it, which explains why we're not hearing it. It also explains why we're about to blow another trillion or so dollars on propping up failing banks, funding pointless highway and bridge construction, and blowing up illiterate peasants in remote places like Afghanistan and Pakistan."
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01302009.html
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:42pm
why the nation got so screwed by 12 years of a repub majority in congress and 8 years of hsuB/cHeney admin
?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 1:20pm
Let's try using the facts instead..
4 of the 8 years of the Bush Admin, the Dems controlled the Senate (2001-2002, 2007-2008). The other 4 years, the Republicans lacked enough votes to overcome any budget filibusters by the Dems and thus spending increased to accomodate the Democrats. Spending Bush should have vetoed.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:56pm
Gallup found that Americans support the stimulus by a healthy margin of 59-33 percent, including 1 in 4 Republicans. Too bad those Republicans don't have a voice in this blog.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 1:59pm
"...it cannot tell the bitter truth, which is that our national economy will never "bounce back" to where it was in 2007."
Talk about sophistry, ignore how we got here in the first place.
So as long as the wily coyote doesn't look down no one, the coyote or especially in this case - new con blood sucking ticks, has to know there's no bottom the coyote has been running across for the last few years.
Well tooooo bad-- everyone has already looked down.
So now everyone just look up and say:
Thank you Mr President Obama for the parachute.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:56pm
Amazing how even with Both Houses of Congress AND the White House....
Republicans are "hamstrung" by Democrats?!?!??
So, really, Larry, there's not much reason for you to keep voting for them, is there?....but you do!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 2:09pm
4 of the 8 years of the Bush Admin, the Dems controlled the Senate (2001-2002, 2007-2008).
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:56pm
Two by a one Lie berman vote!?! And the other two by splitting up the chairs!?!? and 12 years in the house as well?-- of course not. (Thus the repub house corrosive Clinton impeachment for a blowjob-- the new con blood sucking ticks weren't able to do themselves.)
And 8 years of hsuB/cHeny unitary exec (petty dic'tatorship) plus a gestapo DoJ
Try again.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 2:11pm
Hey, anti sobrietist, haven't heard you mention Jesus in quite some time. Are you into multi level marketing now? Better start smoozing with your down line a bit more. The message in "Get Rich While You Sleep" is a little stale now.
Just who are you preaching to? Mammonism rearing its ugly head?
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 2:52pm
off topic
Hamas murder campaign in Gaza exposed Islamist regime has killed dozens and tortured others as 'collaborators' with Israel in war's aftermath, Amnesty and Guardian sources say
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 3:15pm
HELLO:
Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, has signed on as a co-sponsor of legislation introduced by House Judiciary Chair John Conyers to establish "a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties."
http://tinyurl.com/d3w5f8
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 3:15pm
Well, I'm sure excalibur and syfriendly will show up to tell us that Hamas did NOT "torture"...
it was "intensive interrogation"!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 3:22pm
Hey, anti sobrietist, haven't heard you mention Jesus in quite some time. Are you into multi level marketing now? Better start smoozing with your down line a bit more. The message in "Get Rich While You Sleep" is a little stale now.
Just who are you preaching to? Mammonism rearing its ugly head?
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 2:52pm
I'm not into materialism..I don't need riches or things to make me happy.
I have stated before that I normally reserve talk about Christ to specific responses since this is primarily a political blog.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 3:33pm
The natural question is-
Then why do you support a party that prides itself on enriching small sectors of the population unnaturally & denying very large sectors of a decent living & thusly condemning them to squalor?
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 3:51pm
The natural question is-
Then why do you support a party that prides itself on enriching small sectors of the population unnaturally & denying very large sectors of a decent living & thusly condemning them to squalor?
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 3:51pm
First of all, I don't always support the Republicans, because they are often too liberal for me. I have voted 3rd party more than for the GOP the last 20 years.
Secondly, the Democrats represent a party addicted to unconstitutional power rather than pursuing empowerment of the states for their social programs as the constitution provides.
As a former conservative hippy (actually there are no former hippies), I have always believed in an approach to govt that cannot be placed in the narrow box that many try and ascribe to me.
Republicans at least at times represent a more constitutional approach by respecting the 10th amendment and the enumerated powers principles of the constitution.
They also have a more sound approach to foreign policy in my opinion.
But all that aside, I do believe strongly in helping those who cannot help themselves. I just don't believe that function lies primarily with the Federal govt. For holding that viewpoint, the left often castigates people like myself as somehow not carrying because we don't agree that the constitution empowers the Fed to do these things. That displays an unwillingness to actually consider the facts.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 4:18pm
According to the Post, not one Republican voted for the House/Senate compromise bill today.
It seems the ideological schism is as well defined as it has been for the last eight years or more, and isn't about to disappear anytime soon.
The Obama administration should abandon its effort to establish bipartisanship in legislative matters, and just go for broke. It might be the last opportunity for awhile to get majority Democratic support for progressive issues.
Let the Republicans wallow in their rigid ideological drool.
The populace seems to express more interest in getting back to work than in whether their congressperson is religiously adhering to the conservative mantra. Times are changing, but the political right won't remove the blinders.
Democrats have a unique opportunity to really make a difference in shaping the country in the next few years. They should take full advantage of that.
Posted by jackwells at 02/13/2009 @ 4:36pm
... the Democrats represent a party addicted to unconstitutional power rather than pursuing empowerment of the states for their social programs as the constitution provides. (And then there's the extraconstitutional addiction of unsocial programs by the new con bloodsucking ticks.)
But all that aside, I do believe strongly in helping those who cannot help themselves. I just don't believe that function lies primarily with the Federal govt. (Because we each build the highways we each drive on and regulate each product we buy, and each test each peace of food we eat and test the water we each drink,... etc.)
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 4:18pm
I'm sure you mean well. But a good example of paving the road to... where we find ourselves!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 4:48pm
I thought I was voting for someone to lead us in "Simon Says." Instead, it seems, we are playing "Mother May I."
Posted by theo51 at 02/13/2009 @ 5:09pm
I thought I was voting for someone to lead us in "Simon Says." Instead, it seems, we are playing "Mother May I."
Posted by theo51 at 02/13/2009 @ 5:09pm
Apparently it's 90% Simon says and just 10% mother fu...
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2009 @ 5:24pm
HAPPY, go sell some cigars to pre-school kids. Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 11:32am
I think he IS a pre-school kid. Who smokes cigars.
As to all the posts by antisocialist, maybe it's time this country embraced a little socialism to save itself.
The problem most 'conservatives' have with that is that it makes it very difficult to be a greedy, self centered capitalist who is happy as long as they are one of the 'have-mores'.
Political systems must morph to serve the needs of the people (remember the constitution?). It's possible that the freewheeling, unregulated capitalist model just doesn't work anymore. It's the reason that we have all this debt.
We need more than change; we need our country back from those with fascistic tendencies masquerading as happy entrepreneurs...
Posted by ficheye at 02/13/2009 @ 5:34pm
John Boehner cares about good policy as much as George W. cares about good grammar. The Republicans in Congress are traitors. If you're not with the President on rescuing the country, then you are not a patriotic American. Shame on you America-hating Republicans.
Posted by guanabana at 02/13/2009 @ 7:27pm
I agree with ficheye. A little dose of socialism is needed. The California Nurses Association's support for One Payer healthcare is a good example of grassroots efforts to save our country. Also, people need to understand that Universal Healthcare is not the same as One Payer. By eliminating health insurance companies from the equation (one Payer) we can curve the spiraling cost of healthcare and use our resources more effectively.
Posted by nursevic at 02/13/2009 @ 7:46pm
"I don't believe that function lies primarily with the federal government". Posted by LvL
Sorry Anti, but receiving a box of canned goods & a religious tract just doesn't equate with a monthly social security check.
"They also have a more sound approach to foreign policy in my opinion". Posted by LVl
Again sorry, but applying your patron saint John Foster Dulles' policies into infinity doesn't appeal to me.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 8:23pm
"Joe Boehner cares about good policy as much as George W...." Posted by guanabana
If JB ever decided to quit smoking he'd need a full body nicotine patch. Man, the guy's toxic.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/13/2009 @ 9:22pm
When every member of a political party votes "against" or "for" a bill you are witnessing the assasination of LIBERTY. We are witnessing the demise of REPRESENTATION. We are witnessing the eradication of INDIVIDUALISM. The constituents of the states that these men represent should be going nuts! has anyone polled those states to see what the people think! The two-party system is flawed and corrupt and a breeding ground for mediocrity and moderate "centrist" beliefs. Great when you have to decide on what to wear to the Hill for bthat day. But in the time of crisis is no time for this behavior. Abraham Lincoln was not a centrist at his greatest moment. Franklin Roosevelt was by no means a moderate when it came to pulling America out of it's last "Great Depression". It's time to speak with the voice that gave you the idea of becoming a politician in the first place. You know that time before the special interest groups got to you and your campaigns. It is egregious to "tow the party line" any time but unforgivable in a crisis! There is so much at stake and to try to salvage some political real estate at the expense of the people you take an oath to protect and defend is, I believe nothing short of treasonous. When you are the party of "stagnacy" that the American people just voted out! If the last 28 years have proven nothing else they have proven that "trickle down economics", tax breaks (which seem to profit only the top 1% of Americans has (bleeped) us over pretty good! Once again its the American People, the Working Class, the Joe on the Street, who must bare the brunt of those misguided and greedy policies. And now they have even leveraged our children and our childrens children by making US, THE PEOPLE decide what to do! To be continued...
Posted by NikkoJames7 at 02/13/2009 @ 10:00pm
the american revolution?
I think it would be a good idea.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 10:32pm
Well the time has come to make your representatives and Senators accountable for what and how they vote. It's very simple to find out how they voted by going to: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm Then go to www.opensecrets.org and find out what industries contribute to their campaigns. See who they really place their vote for. It is time to make laws that regulate taking contributions from the same industry that you are a committee member or subcommittee member of! All Americans should read David Cay Johnston "Perfectly Legal". If, after reading it you don't want to demand accountability from your Congresspersons and Senators then you are dead from the neck up and the Corporate Media machine has done it's job. After all we all know what kind of dog the Obamas will bring to the White House but how many of us ever heard the news report that from "1970 till 2000 the average $$ raise for the bottom 99% of Americans was $90 per year. That is the sum total in wage increases across three decadesof growing American prosperity: a real pay raise, before taxes, for 30 years averaging less than a nickel an hour each year." so written in David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal...
Posted by NikkoJames7 at 02/13/2009 @ 11:02pm
the news report that from "1970 till 2000 the average $$ raise for the bottom 99% of Americans was $90 per year. That is the sum total in wage increases across three decadesof growing American prosperity: a real pay raise, before taxes, for 30 years averaging less than a nickel an hour each year." so written in David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal...
Posted by NikkoJames7 at 02/13/2009 @ 11:02pm
What dark hole did you crawl out of?
Your information is about as ridiculous as you.
Let's use my own example. I left the military in Oct 1970. In Feb '71, I was back at my pre-military job with a pay raise of 20% from my pre-military rate.
by 1974, I entered the better position of entrepeneur earning 7x my previous wages.
by 1982 I returned to the corporate world where I earned still 25 times my '71 position.
by 1989 I was earning 40x my '71 earnings as the VP of an Aerospace company.
by 1993 I went back to entrepeneurial earning 50x '71 earnings.
semi-retired now, but still running my own business, I still earn part-time, 25x my '71 earnings.
Using your figures, my wages from '71 would now only be about 7500 per year.
you are a joke.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 11:20pm
you are a joke. Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 11:20pm
Again, threaten the greedy capitalist with something that would benefit everyone and not just them... well, the screeching and name calling begins. Then the vilifying of anyone less fortunate as a 'welfare bum', which is the crass generalization that leads to the definition of social services of any sort as the beginnings of the dreaded 'socialism'.
Soon, quotes from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Then the vague postulations about marxism, communism, etc., all to cover up some deep seated guilt about either being very fortunate in education and upbringing or being just plain lucky. " I've got mine. Where's yours?" A highly laudable human trait. Insert sarcasm there.
The end result is sometimes a deep seated and pervasive self centeredness. Not always, but it happens often enough that a group of individuals we now know as 'Republicans' hold our nation hostage in the hopes that common sense will return in this difficult flux period, and people, those 'rude socialists' that all capitalists need in a sick symbiosis, will return to purchasing beyond their means while the rich sneer and simultaneously demand our compliance as they build a condo where we used to live.
Emile is perfectly correct. Revolution, and all that it implies.
Revolution, and all that it implies.
'antisocialist' describes his ascendancy to financial freedom in the capitalist hierarchy as a meritorious achievement, when all the gaps in his happy story would most likely be filled with egregious actions that were taken in order to fulfill his selfish little dream.
The words 'military' and 'corporation' catch the eye.
Then the moniker 'antisocialist'. The mark of the beast? I wonder.
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 01:43am
And I'm not done yet, mr. antisocialist.
(Some have postulated the existence of right wing shills here at the Nation. antisocialist may be a case in point).
There seem to be hallucinogenic schisms in your viewpoint that are just goofy, to be nice about it. Let's enjoy these items, shall we?
"...As a former conservative hippy (actually there are no former hippies)"
Acid, anyone?
"First of all, I don't always support the Republicans, because they are often too liberal for me."
Why, THAT seems like something a 'former hippy' would say.
And then there's this..
"Republicans... also have a more sound approach to foreign policy in my opinion."
Yeah, it's worked out brilliantly, especially in the recent moves across the planet which seem less focused on keeping 'freedom on the march' and more pointed towards acquiring resources by any means possible.
Deeper still...
"I left the military in Oct 1970. In Feb '71, I was back at my pre-military job with a pay raise of 20% from my pre-military rate."
Now, that ex-hippy has come a long way. Switched from dope to Virginia Slims. And the headache worsens...
"by 1982 I returned to the corporate world where I earned still 25 times my '71 position."
So I interpret that to mean " I smoked dope in the Nam, but gave it up later when it made me think too much, and later I sold out to the corporate military-industrial complex to get rich as I increasingly became an incredible hypocrite and turncoat.
What a story.
Are you on the ticket with Sarah Palin and the 'End of Days' campaign for 2012? I wouldn't advise telling her you were an ex-hippy. She'd probably have you hunted from the air... 150 bucks if someone brought back your ponytail.
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 02:17am
hippies did not go to Vietnam, they burned their draft cards. liverty is a phony.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 10:43am
¬^¬ did eat a lot of deplete uranium... could be causing him a lot side effects. Esp. with the agent orange, dope and acid- mix. Heart burnt?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
hippies did not go to Vietnam, they burned their draft cards. liverty is a phony.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 10:43am
Emile,
being from NY, you know nothing about hippies.
The real hippie culture was always on the west coast.
Also mr. know it all, I began experimenting with the hippie life beginning in 1965, but I did not become a full-time hippie until after I left the service. During the service I engaged the lifestyle in ways that I could (which would be a lengthy discussion on it's own). And there were many like myself. I screwed with military psychologists heads by saying I was both pro pacifism and pro nuclear war. I left the service right when I was planning to re-enlist because of what happened at Kent State. But not because I was against the war. I felt it was time to be part of the voices of debate which I could not do as a member of the military. I still supported the war but was able to join the lifestyle for many other reasons.
Like so many liberals, you (and ficheye it appears) have to paint things into a box that conforms to your own limited vision and understanding. Anything that doesn't exactly fit into your perception can't be real. We are the same age and all of your education, life experience, and culture has still left you amazingly bankrupt in understanding what is outside of your own little world.
The Hippie life was at it's core, mostly about being yourself; free to express who you are; Frankly, it's why many people tell me they appreciate my approach to ministry and even business. I don't fit into stereotypes. What I do here is messing with liberal mindsets, and people like yourself will never understand my kind of libertarian conservative. It's an oxymoron to you and thus it cannot compute.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
antisociali at 02/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
The hippies life was one where Love and Peace came 1st.
You seem rather confused and seem rather anti-love; anti-peace. Your moniker says it all. If you pretended to be a hippie it was because you either went through a shallow phase to get chicks or you were unbeknownst even to yourself an undercover wanna be-- narc.
Now you know.
You are free now.
Go in peace and find love.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:00pm
Continued to Emile re hippies
My life as a hippie is why even though I no longer do drugs that I have a libertarian attitude towards their use. I have openly stated here at the Nation that I don't support the extreme anti-drug laws and positions of most Republicans. It is why I don't use doctors, but instead utilize holistic, natural approaches to health and healing. It is why I grow many of my fruits and vegetables and lead a fairly simple lifestyle. It is why I still have long hair and a full beard (although both are white now)
Hippie life helped to form my libertarian/conservative beliefs on small govt. Some just went further and thus a new era and manifestations of anarchism were born. I can't get behind that extreme move but I understand it.
There is a great little movie that I watch every month called Flashback with Dennis Hopper and Kiefer Sutherland. It is a great "flashback" into the times and the controversies the lifestyle created. A similar one but more anti-war focused was 1969 with Sutherland and Robert Downey Jr. I enjoy them both for the memories they provide of bygone years.
Emile, I always enjoy the intellectual level of dialogue that can develop with you. It is the aggravating moments of arrogance and dismissiveness that sometimes wipes out all the good and productive moments. Granted, I am also guilty at times of the same. Debate creates both levels; those who can rise above the petty will always come out better for it.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 1:03pm
being from NY, you know nothing about hippies.
yeah right. where do you think that many if not most of those west coast types came from?
it's a silly argument.
turn on, tune in and drop out.
there was a Fillmore East AND a Fillmore West.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:06pm
The hippies life was one where Love and Peace came 1st.
You seem rather confused and seem rather anti-love; anti-peace. Your moniker says it all. If you pretended to be a hippie it was because you either went through a shallow phase to get chicks or you were unbeknownst even to yourself an undercover wanna be-- narc.
Now you know.
You are free now.
Go in peace and find love.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:00pm
See Bushfools, you also fall so easily into narrow stereotyping..
I don't see how being anti-socialist has anything to do with being anti-peace or love. This is just an immature rant on your part.
And you are wrong on both parts of your attempted reasoning.
1. After September of '71, I was with the same woman throughout the 70's.
2. My post to Emile at 1:03 explains that I am a libertarian on drug laws-so the Narc thing is just infantile.
I have been at peace with myself for probably longer than you have been alive.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 1:10pm
it's a silly argument.
moi, I loove silly arguments.
Monterey Pop, were you there?
Woodstock? were you there?
I was.
I hitch hiked cross country.
I had high school girl companions until I hit 40
I have never had a full time job.
last year my hair reached the small of my back.
I have a bag of shrooms in my closet and 40 0r 50 tabs of blotter.
you may have been a hippie for a week or two, but I have walked the walk.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:13pm
I lived in the Mo - corner of Fillmore and Haight; for about 6 months, when I went to SFAI.
Was just beginning to get gentrified.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:19pm
oh and I successfully dodged the draft.
I also marched on the pentagon, among other protests against the war. I faced National Guard troops who had fixed bayonets and were wearing gas masks.
there were no hippies who supported the war, by definition.
I met Alan Ginsberg numerous times. I worked for the guy who created and directed "Hair", the late Tom O'Horgan.
I saw several Living Theater productions.
I acted in a little coffee house theater in the East Village.
I played a hippie on an educational TV series, it was a case of typecasting.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:24pm
Allen Ginsberg
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:29pm
black Afghani
Lebanese Red.
opium
Michoacan
Kif
Thai sticks
BC bud
Ludes
sugar cube
blotter
Ibiza
Amsterdam
Venice, CA
Frisco
Vancouver
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:35pm
antisociali at 02/14/2009 @ 1:10pm
History of the hippie movement - The foundation of the hippie movement finds historical precedent as far back as the counterculture of the Ancient Greeks, espoused by philosophers like Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics.[6] Hippie philosophy also credits the religious and spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ, Hillel the Elder, Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Henry David Thoreau, and Gandhi.[6] The first signs of what we would call modern "proto-hippies" emerged in fin de siècle Europe. Between 1896–1908, a German youth movement arose as a countercultural reaction to the organized social and cultural clubs that centered around German folk music. Known as Der Wandervogel ("migratory bird"), the movement opposed the formality of traditional German clubs, instead emphasizing amateur music and singing, creative dress, and communal outings involving hiking and camping.[7] Inspired by the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Goethe, Hermann Hesse, and Eduard Baltzer, Wandervogel attracted thousands of young Germans who rejected the rapid trend toward urbanization and yearned for the pagan, back-to-nature spiritual life of their ancestors.[8] During the first several decades of the twentieth century, Germans settled around the United States, bringing the values of the Wandervogel with them. Some opened the first health food stores, and many moved to Southern California where they could practice an alternative lifestyle in a warm climate. Over time, young Americans adopted the beliefs and practices of the new immigrants. One group, called the "Nature Boys", took to the California desert and raised organic food, espousing a back-to-nature lifestyle like the Wandervogel.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:36pm
I have always had friends who were dealers.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:38pm
Hippeis continued _ Songwriter Eden Ahbez wrote a hit song called Nature Boy inspired by Robert Bootzin (Gypsy Boots), who helped popularize health-consciousness, yoga, and organic food in the United States.
Like Wandervogel, the hippie movement in the United States began as a youth movement. Composed mostly of white teenagers and young adults between the ages of 15 and 25 years old,[9][10] hippies inherited a tradition of cultural dissent from bohemians and beatniks of the Beat Generation in the late 1950s.[10] Beats like Allen Ginsberg crossed-over from the beat movement and became fixtures of the burgeoning hippie and anti-war movements.
Hippie culture spread worldwide through a fusion of rock music, folk, blues, and psychedelic rock; it also found expression in literature, the dramatic arts, fashion, and the visual arts, including film, posters advertising rock concerts, and album covers.[15] Self-described hippies had become a significant minority by 1968, representing just under 0.2% of the U.S. population[16] before declining in the mid-1970s.[11]
Along with the New Left and the American Civil Rights Movement, the hippie movement was one of three dissenting groups of the 1960s counterculture.[12] Hippies rejected established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed nuclear weapons and the Vietnam War, embraced aspects of Eastern philosophy,[17] championed sexual liberation, were often vegetarian and eco-friendly, promoted the use of psychedelic drugs to expand one's consciousness, and created intentional communities or communes. They used alternative arts, street theatre, folk music, and psychedelic rock as a part of their lifestyle and as a way of expressing their feelings, their protests and their vision of the world and life.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:39pm
hsuBfools
included were nudists. I am usually naked around the house.
I did my honors thesis in german lit on Herman Hesse.
hipper than thou, liverty? you betcha
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:42pm
Hippies opposed political and social orthodoxy, choosing a gentle and nondoctrinaire ideology that favored peace, love and personal freedom,[18][19] perhaps best epitomized by The Beatles' song "All You Need is Love".[20] Hippies perceived the dominant culture as a corrupt, monolithic entity that exercised undue power over their lives, calling this culture "The Establishment", "Big Brother", or "The Man".[21][22][23] Noting that they were "seekers of meaning and value", scholars like Timothy Miller describe hippies as a new religious movement.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie
So antisociali, you want to do what new con repub blood sucking ticks do best, revise history and language in order to legitimize their suck.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:44pm
Hermann Hesse.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:45pm
Monterey Pop, were you there?
Woodstock? were you there?
I was.
I hitch hiked cross country.
I had high school girl companions until I hit 40
I have never had a full time job.
last year my hair reached the small of my back.
I have a bag of shrooms in my closet and 40 0r 50 tabs of blotter.
you may have been a hippie for a week or two, but I have walked the walk.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:13pm
Monterey Pop-I was in the military, but I did have a date with Janis Joplin that year shortly before going on activie duty.
Woodstock-a military buddy from NY and I got one of the flyers and he said he knew the area. We took off in his 65 Beetle. Came through into NY on 84 from Conn. We got within about 2 miles and the traffic as you may remember was unlike anything I had ever seen in the East. As much as we wanted to see the groups, we had no idea (like most people) that it was going to be the monster event it became. We figured we wouldn't get in and turned around and drove back to Conn. Our big loss (an understatement)
I did do a 4 day event in '71 at Yosemite. There were only about 2000 of us; but it was memorable. I had a bag of mescaline that I spread on the trunk of my Triumph. I was very much into Carlos Castaneda and his "Teachings of Don Juan" at the time. That and a small group of us that thought you could only really understand the Moody Blues if you were on Mescaline or Acid (seems pretty funny now).
My point Emile is that like much of life, there is more that we share in our past than that with which divides us. I don't diminish the the things that divide us; they are large; but like most people of similar age, if we are willing to explore the truth, we may be surprised.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 1:52pm
I used to have all of Hesse's books... I see 4 left. The rest borrowed or stolen.
Loved them. Need to reread. Some day.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:56pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 1:44pm
I was there too hsub,the above wiki post says it all. The gamers & the power trippers were to be avoided like the plague. We probably crossed paths at some point.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/14/2009 @ 1:58pm
we had no idea (like most people) that it was going to be the monster event it became. We figured we wouldn't get in and turned around and drove back to Conn.
you see that's the difference between us. you drove back to conn. I didn't. with the help of a college press pass, and the gift of the gab, I drove right up to the stage area, and parked in the meadow where the helicopters were landing. and yes it was a VW bug.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:00pm
come out of the woodwork, ye freaks.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:03pm
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:03pm
Yes, Emile, the east coast was well represented in San Fran. Some righteous dudes.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/14/2009 @ 2:09pm
apropos Woodstock, I had tickets, a block of four. I did not get a chance to use them, and I kept them around in my drawer for oh about ten years. had I kept them in mint condition, they likely could have paid my son's college tuition.
I do have a dozen or so original posters.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:18pm
Sorelish
we were a tribe.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:19pm
I guess what antisociali is missing is that being a hippie was to put love and peace as their reason for their freedom. Thus in misprioritizing what the hippie life style meant or pursued-- attempts to diminish or delegitimize it.
Not saying that there were a lot of people that were on the fringe of the hippie movement that never got it or believed in what it represented-- beyond just having fun for a moment. There were millions. More than there were hippies. But that in itself should no way change the definition of a hippie.
People called me a hippie when I really wasn't. I admire the ideals of hippies, but I'm still decades later way too inhibited, perhaps too scarred-- to share that selflessly; to be that open to hope for a world that good.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
the hippie thing was done in by heroin and Reagan.
liverty's saint is Reagan. that's all you need to know.
we have more to offer now, and we will need optimism and idealism, and yes, peace.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:31pm
included were nudists. I am usually naked around the house.
I did my honors thesis in german lit on Herman Hesse.
hipper than thou, liverty? you betcha
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 1:42pm
more areas of commonality for us...since I didn't go to college until after the military, I was probably there later than you...but I did do the whole streaking thing also.
My family belonged to a nudist colony. My father was always disturbing my friends when I was a teenager by walking naked into our kitchen holding his morning coffee on the way to his laps in the pool.
Hesse-good writer. Siddartha was required reading in my Eastern Religions class in college.
I don't claim to be "hippier" than anyone. I am me and that is what's important. Just as you are the you that you have become.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 2:38pm
you see that's the difference between us. you drove back to conn. I didn't. with the help of a college press pass, and the gift of the gab, I drove right up to the stage area, and parked in the meadow where the helicopters were landing. and yes it was a VW bug.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:00pm
yes, I was bound by military restrictions that you did not face. Not knowing what a historic event it would become, did not seem worth going to the brig at the time.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 2:40pm
I was there too hsub
Posted by Sorelish at 02/14/2009 @ 1:58pm
When?
A tribe of good people there, hippies from Texas, took me in when I was much more adventurous and strong. Way young. Great memories. Even lived with some Mormons from Ohio.
I had to move back home eventually to help the family out.
Never really left.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 2:41pm
My father was always disturbing my friends when I was a teenager by walking naked into our kitchen holding his morning coffee on the way to his laps in the pool.
my son makes me put on clothes when his friends drop by.
as far as you are concerned mon cher, the hippie thing was an inoculation that did not take.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:42pm
have been at peace with myself for probably longer than you have been alive. Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 1:10pm
Well, I guess we've been too hard on you, then. I'd love some of that peace. You also seem to have taken up hippie-ness at a later stage in life than most of us to be able to make the above statement.
But why do you come here and write if you are so at peace? I think that would be the underlying question in regards to everyone else's confusion about just what it it that you are saying. And why.
"I was for it, before I was against it." Or, "I was lost, and now I'm found".
So, it seems the topic, 'Bipartisan Utopia Mugged By Reality' is happening to this thread as well. You state things that would lead us to believe that we are closer in our thinking than we are first led to believe. Then you seem to point out how far apart we are at the same time. I think that you want us to drink the kool-aid that you have partaken of.
I like your writing style, though. You seem very philosophical, but your story outlines an inexorable movement towards the 'right', away from the hippy days, into a right/libertarian headspace.
To me, libertarianism usually means "Don't pin me down to a firm opinion, because as soon as you do I'm going to change my mind". Like quantum mechanics. If we can actually observe dark matter, then it's said that we change it's make-up, or even it's existence.
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 2:53pm
No one in my family would even dream of walking anywhere nude-- even in the bathroom. I had cousins that even showered with their underwear on!
My family were very conservative. Neither of my parents went to college. Being very mixed genetically, hispanic traditionally, I experienced a lot of grandparent mysticism. It helped to open me up a little, if only spiritually and looking back - probably intellectually.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 3:00pm
Speaking of hippies:
Just had a thought.
Is Obama like the hippie putting the flower in the barrel of the new con blood sucking tick gun?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 3:01pm
To me, libertarianism usually means "Don't pin me down to a firm opinion, because as soon as you do I'm going to change my mind". Like quantum mechanics. If we can actually observe dark matter, then it's said that we change it's make-up, or even it's existence.
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 2:53pm
Nice post. Libertarianism is actually about having as little govt intrusion as possible. Unlike anarchy, it recognizes that some govt is needed for civil order and self defense. it also strives for people helping people rather than govts which it considers very inefficient for such needs.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 3:01pm
as far as you are concerned mon cher, the hippie thing was an inoculation that did not take.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 2:42pm
As I say here every year Emile, I still like you.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 3:03pm
One time I was selling Berkeley Barbs & San Francisco Oracles on a street corner & this guy, totally ripped & suited, says "I'd like you to meet some friends of mine." With all the time in the world, I ask, "Where?" "Just down the street, in an office bldg." So we walk into the Standard Oil Bldg. & go up to the top floors. Heads turn as he escorts me into several glass walled cubes. Incredulous execs slowly extend their hands as I'm introduced.
My friend, who's having a blast bids me goodbye & I leave in my own astonishment.
Two weeks later my friend is selling hot dogs at the Wharf. Life in the sixties.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/14/2009 @ 3:08pm
Libertarianism is actually about having as little govt intrusion as possible.
-- it recognizes that some govt is needed for civil order and self defense.
-- it also strives for people helping people rather than govts which it considers very inefficient for such needs.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 3:01pm
But isn't that the biggest contradiction of the new con mixed up bag of tricks in delegitimizing 'We the people' as a government of and by the people.
They say that our government aren't us, that only corporations or individuals are people.
But if the gov is the enemy, that our gov-r-us-- isn't supposed to interact with us the people per our voting for it to do so, what is it? It was gov-r-new con repub blood sucking ticks-- that certainly didn't work.
So what was so painfully proved these last couple of decades was that new con repub blood sucking ticks are 'inefficient'--- and not 'We the people's gov.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 3:25pm
Hsub Lived in SF between '63 & '77 & lived in the Haight in '67. I lived with a couple on Carl & Cole Sts.
Spent a lot of time on pub transit taking the girlfriend home into the outer Mission. Safe in those days in the wee hours. She was just in the process of weaning herself from compulsory Catholic church attendance. The bloom faded.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/14/2009 @ 3:26pm
This link provides a fairly good insight into how for some of us in the hippie movement, we could find a legitimate path into capitalism
The Aquarians and the Evangelicals
How left-wing hippies and right-wing fundamentalists created a libertarian America.
Brink Lindsey | July 2007
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120265.html
It is why a Jerry Rubin, Rennie Davis, and the Grateful Dead adopted capitalism.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 3:29pm
Even libertarians don/t believe in preemptive wars. Sounds as though you're still confused.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 3:29pm
I think you could make things a lot clearer here if you just said: " ... And then I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour".
Am I wrong? I'm just detecting enough spiritual ambiguity around the edges to make me wonder just a little bit. And I don't really have a problem with that.
But there is just a hint of an unspoken philosophy that seems to have directed your life. And since you have now told us your life story in an attempt to validate your path from hippy to libertarian/capitalist, we may as well complete the loop and achieve full clarity.
In regards to the post of 3:29 pm, I think we have a clear picture of everything else. I'm not really sure WHY we need to know all this stuff, however. An answer to why the bipartisan utopia is a myth, perhaps?
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 3:58pm
Sorelish,
The 70's were the 60's in Texas... Yep, things just moved way so much slower back then.
I got to the Mo/ San Fran way late, in '79 when it was mostly punk - not hip, lots of trash, with little pockets of hippies. Like close friends. Spent most of my time working at SFAI or in class, otherwise just meeting lots of different people, exploring different art. Fun times.
Bottom line, some experienced various degrees of hippie life style: to some exec's hippie days it's their paisley tie... and those various degrees therein-- aren't it either.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 4:10pm
So is it:
Obama like the hippie putting the flower in the barrel of the new con blood sucking tick gun?
"An answer to why the bipartisan utopia is a myth, perhaps?"
Or perhaps it's the new con repub blood sucking ticks attempt to make myths out of history: hippies, We the people, Obama,... etc.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 4:22pm
Fox News' Glenn Beck laid into RNC Chairman Michael Steele during an interview Friday following the House's passing of the stimulus bill, telling him that the party had "betrayed" conservatives.
Steele's response: "You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point."
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2009 @ 4:58pm
In regards to the post of 3:29 pm, I think we have a clear picture of everything else. I'm not really sure WHY we need to know all this stuff, however. An answer to why the bipartisan utopia is a myth, perhaps?
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 3:58pm
Foremost because it established some common ground. I wanted to point out that the differences between right and left aren't always so black and white.
it also made for pleasant Saturday dialogue.
and yes, in '81 I made a recommitment to Christ as my Lord rather than just my savior.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 5:00pm
and yes, in '81 I made a recommitment to Christ as my Lord rather than just my savior. Posted by antisocialist at 02/14/2009 @ 5:00pm
Thank you. That makes things a lot clearer, and by that I mean no disrespect.
Jesus did forcibly run out the money changers from the temple. Once again, we seem to be in need of his help on this matter.
And in response to " ... the differences between right and left aren't always so black and white"...
Yes, a recent epiphany that many are undergoing is that we ARE a nation that is a slave to capitalist ideologies. Immediate change will create more disaster. Gradual change is more beneficial and practical.
Spirituality is also good. I think, however, that spiritual 'groupthink' is not. It entraps said spiritualities into a lockstep position with an ideologue leadership group that usually resists change rather than embracing it. Our ability to change, politically AND spiritually is how we will save ourselves. Spiritual and political evolution needs to be both seen and accepted before actualities can take place.
All this needs to be accompanied by the gradual creation of a national centrist mindset (gulp) that is a necessary chimera of all our current philosophies if we are to survive. Except the libertarian one, I'm afraid. Too many definitions exist for libertarianism; enough to convince one that there isn't really a clear unitized philosophy about it. It definitely needs more research.
Thanks for the civil responses.
Posted by ficheye at 02/14/2009 @ 5:38pm
I didn't get past the first two paragraphs. It's time to stop calling the neo-cons currently populating the GOP seats, Republicans. The last Republican to hold the executive office was Eisenhower. Those people are not representatives. They are election handicappers serving an ultra right-wing cabal that has been allowed to exist in American government since the horse trading over slavery and other items, with Loyalist elements during the drafting of the Constitution. It's the reason that treason and corruption are so readily accepted, it's been their practice for over 200 years. I think it's safe to say that some of the 'republicans' we've seen in recent years are enemies of the U.S. and would love to see the the Confederacy sedition come full circle.
Don't get confused. It's no accident that the Confederate flag is all over the place. It is NOT just a kitchy throwback with racist overtones. It is the same continuous movement that exists intact to this day existing to destroy the United States. Now they have learned how to gain power in the Federal government by using the same fear, privilege mongering, and racism that bore their movement. That is the hardcore 30% you see in poll statistics. They are not naive, so let's not be either.
Posted by Milhaus at 02/15/2009 @ 10:12am
And as usual John King and the village people on CNN this morning are treating this as a false equivalency issue (Dems say...Repubs say)...rather then digging into the story and trying to understand the basic truth of the matter!
Which is that Dems made every attempt to reach out to Republicans, taking out parts of the stimulus bill they wanted, and putting in stuff that Repubs wanted...and they still got almost no cooperation from the other side of the aisle!
I think the American people are waking up to the fact that the only thing the Repubs are good at is winning elections and being obstructionists...they SUCK BIG TIME at the actual reality of running government!
Posted by wagonjak at 02/15/2009 @ 12:42pm
Which is that Dems made every attempt to reach out to Republicans, taking out parts of the stimulus bill they wanted, and putting in stuff that Repubs wanted...and they still got almost no cooperation from the other side of the aisle!
I think the American people are waking up to the fact that the only thing the Repubs are good at is winning elections and being obstructionists...they SUCK BIG TIME at the actual reality of running government!
Posted by wagonjak at 02/15/2009 @ 12:42pm
What an absolute farce, straight from the DNC talking points.
Facts
1. Republicans in the House were not allowed to submit amendments to the original bill
2. House Republicans were not allowed in the Conference Report room to add their input
3. No member of either party actually read the final bill that was passed before voting on it.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/15/2009 @ 4:08pm