COMMENTS: 159
How Conservatives Manipulate People Into Voting Against Their Best Interests
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
As Phil Agre wrote in this much discussed article about the definition of conservatism, "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy ... [it] is incompatible with democracy, prosperity and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world."
Modern conservatism's most successful strategy was to merge public relations and politics into a seamless operation in which it could use modern marketing methods to convince people to vote against their own interests. In that sense, right-wing populism is just another marketing campaign for the aristocrats. And it's working:
South Carolina has embraced foreign investment, with companies from BMW to Michelin transforming a state once dominated by the textile industry. Another aspect of the global economy hasn't gone down as well: immigration.
While an influx of money from overseas has made free trade palatable even as thousands of mill jobs have vanished, voters are growing increasingly hostile to undocumented foreign workers, polls and analysts say. As a result, illegal immigration is a top economic issue in the state's Jan. 19 Republican primary, a key test for the candidates since it's the first in the South.
"Trade is all right as long as everybody goes by the same rules," said David Robinson, 65, who recently retired from a job at a Michelin tire factory in Spartanburg and whose son works in a Hitachi Ltd. plant nearby. Illegal immigration, on the other hand, "is a big problem, and that's one you can get a handle on," he said.South Carolina only has about a 3 percent Latino population, both illegal and legal. It isn't actually a problem at all, much less a big one. The sad truth us that no matter how much "foreign investment" comes into their state, South Carolina manufacturing workers are still on a race to the bottom and they know it. But the conservatives have successfully misdirected them away from the real culprits by stoking latent (and not so latent) racism as an explanation for their insecurity. In a time of rising income inequality, a housing and credit crisis, and the ever more obvious fact of conservative corruption of epic proportions, the Republican Party has worked their rank and file into a frenzy over very poor people who work for next to nothing in hot, dirty fields, blood-soaked poultry plants and steaming restaurant kitchen sinks. It's quite an accomplishment.
But there's more to this than simple manipulation of the racist id. As Agre points out:
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.One of the ways that this modern aristocracy gets people to internalize that the aristocrats are better people is by stoking a fear that the "American Dream" is being threatened by hordes of undeserving interlopers. Who's looking out for the common man? Why, it's the conservatives, your liege lords, who want to close the borders and keep those people out!
That fellow in South Carolina thinks that trade is working for him now that foreign investment is coming to a state with low taxes and no unions to manufacture cars and other things for export. The weak dollar surely makes such things very attractive for those manufacturers at the moment, but it's not clear that this trade has been "fair" at all. South Carolina lost over 250,000 jobs since the '90s, not even close to the jobs it's gained from these plants. But conservatives truly believe that "their betters" have their best interests at heart, so they've come to believe these people are actually heroes of a sort:
Tiremaker Michelin & Cie. of France, which has invested $2.1 billion in the state since 1975 and employs almost 8,000 workers, said in August it would spend an additional $350 million over four years, generating additional jobs.
BMW North America, a unit of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG of Munich, the world's largest luxury car maker, said last month it would boost annual production of its X5 sport-utility vehicle and other cars in Spartanburg by 100,000 units by 2012. Germany's BASF AG and Japan's Fujifilm Holdings Corp. also have major facilities in the state.
"People around here are beginning to connect the dots that this area is increasingly tied to trade and exports," said Greenville's Mayor White, an immigration lawyer, adding that there's been little job displacement due to undocumented workers.According to this chart from the Department of Labor, however, manufacturing isn't adding jobs to the economy at all. In fact, it's been losing them for years. The losses have been slightly less catastrophic in the last couple of years, but they are losses nonetheless. (The biggest job provider in the state is actually government, which is somewhat ironic considering what a rock-ribbed conservative state it is.)
So these people, like most working Americans, are genuinely threatened, over a long period of time, by economic forces that are making a lot of people rich -- but not them. They are, however, inexplicably quite content with that state of affairs, but are upset by an extremely small population of foreigners who are doing dirty work for low wages. How does this happen?
Phil Agre:
Conservatism has opposed rational thought for thousands of years. What most people know nowadays as conservatism is basically a public relations campaign aimed at persuading them to lay down their capacity for rational thought ...
Conservatism has used a wide variety of methods to destroy reason throughout history. Fortunately, many of these methods, such as the suppression of popular literacy, are incompatible with a modern economy. Once the common people started becoming educated, more sophisticated methods of domination were required. Thus the invention of public relations, which is a kind of rationalized irrationality. The great innovation of conservatism in recent decades has been the systematic reinvention of politics using the technology of public relations.
The main idea of public relations is the distinction between "messages" and "facts." Messages are the things you want people to believe. A message should be vague enough that it is difficult to refute by rational means. (People in politics refer to messages as "strategies" and people who devise strategies as "strategists." The Democrats have strategists too, and it is not at all clear that they should, but they scarcely compare with the vast public relations machinery of the right.) It is useful to think of each message as a kind of pipeline: a steady stream of facts is selected (or twisted, or fabricated) to fit the message. Contrary facts are of course ignored. The goal is what the professionals call "message repetition." This provides activists with something to do: Come up with new facts to fit the conservative authorities' chosen messages.It is no accident that illegal immigration has emerged as a theme at a time of epic corruption among the conservative aristocrats in business and government. Someone must be blamed for the fallout, and it isn't going to be them. This may seem counterintuitive, considering that business also likes cheap labor, but that's just commerce, and commerce is only a tool of the true conservative mission -- preserving the aristocracy.
Aristocracy is, by definition, un-American. The question is how many Americans will be "messaged" into believing they are doing the patriotic thing by behaving like subjects and hunting down the foreign invader on behalf of their betters.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 12:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This country was founded by aristocrats. To state that aristocracy is un-American is to buy into a naive view of the United States as the great standard-bearer of liberty and freedom, which is itself a nationalist public relations message, an ideology serving the selfish interests of aristocrats.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And who are the American aristocrats?
Posted by: colinmeister
» Don't forget Sen. Kerry.....
Posted by: gellero
» RE: Don't forget Sen. Kerry.....
Posted by: The Heretic
» No Shortage in the Dems & Repubs of Aristocrats
Posted by: rjgwood
» RE: So, So?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: So, So?
Posted by: moflard
» 'progression?'
Posted by: zorro
» RE: Not so
Posted by: BunkerHill
» RE: Not so
Posted by: zorro
» RE: Not so
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Not so
Posted by: aberdeen
» RE: Not so
Posted by: gellero
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 12:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the whole
Posted by: bcain
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 1:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These hustlers fail to mention the power dynamics that accompany the rise of an ultra-rich class. Power is a zero sum game - it comes from decreasing the power of others, subordinating them, controlling them. Even if all boats were to rise in the new economic tide, so that everyone is wealthier in absolute terms than before (which is not actually happening, though it is claimed to be the case), as long as some boats are rising faster than others and financial inequality is growing, this trend will translate into increased power differentials and further abuse of low-status groups by high-status groups.
Wealth might be somewhat flexible in that its absolute value can be increased, even if it can never be infinite. But there is always a fixed supply of power in a society, and obtaining more of it requires taking some from other people. This always occurs when economic inequality grows, despite the (theoretical) possibility of all people becoming wealthier together even when inequality is rising.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 7, 2007 1:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To balance the rhetoric the Democrats have to emotionalize the issues, galvanize the anger and discontent , not try to abate it .
Where's the discontent , the anger , the rage ... If you don't own it, why would anybody else want to. Man Up Democrats.
Eric Alterman has a good article on the media.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/alterman
Democrats need to challlenge the media to report the truth. Joe Klein was a good start. Dems need to dismiss experts who were wrong. The old Iraq experts who got it all wrong are back in business. Shame them ...
Dems need to dismiss discredited people. Take Newt Gingrich , when asked Dems should say he is a liar and philanderer and refuse comment to anything and everything he says. The Dems need to characterize their opponents , especially those that have been discredited and refuse to give them any positive response. Example: John Bolten = verified nut case , Paul Wolfowitz = liar and incompetent and so on. The Dems need to coordinate this so everybodies on the same page and gives the same characterization.
I, like so many Dems are tired of seeing these war criminals , liars , cheats get back in the limelight after they have been thouroughly discredited.
Preach what they did wrong and fight against it .When an expert or one of their own is discredited , put a God Damned stake through their heart by characterization.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ... Newt
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: zizizzi
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: Solar Wind
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: zorro
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe (?)...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe (?)...
Posted by: elyusium
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 7, 2007 3:53 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy ... [it] is incompatible with democracy, prosperity and civilization in general" ----- well, this is probably the most ridiculous, and divisive statement I've ever seen written - many conservatives see liberals as nothing more than children spending all their money on candy and never really wanting to work,an equally ridiculous and divisive statement -
wonder why this country is so polarized?
Loss of manufacturing jobs in this country is a big problem - Carolinas especially as much of theirs was furniture - guess where that comes from now!..but we can look To NAFTA (democrats brain child) for much of that..
Extreme views such as this article does nothing to present a realistic analysis of anything.. all it does is to help perserve the preception that there is a good and bad political side to this country - in the end they are all the same..if you have money you'l lwant to keep it..if you dont, you'll want to earn it.. if someone breaks into your house, you'll want to defend your family - basically not much is different
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Words for the ignorant... Exactly!
Posted by: dover23
» RE: Words for the ignorant... hardly!
Posted by: boydranchitos
» you are exactly what this article is about
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Intellect
» the danger that destroyed American democracy...
Posted by: dover23
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Hovey
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: weslen1
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: cardboardurinal
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: talkville
» Words to live by
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words to live by
Posted by: talkville
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: The Heretic
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: photon's feather on Dec 7, 2007 4:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocons 'hate' the Clintons. What a joke! Just watch Bill Clinton next time he is hanging out with his pal, the elder George Bush - you know, the one he let off the hook by dropping the Iran-Contra case. Don't think that Clinton II wouldn't do likewise for Bush II.
Isn't the war-mongering Corporate Clinton at the top of the polls in large part because of the misguided notion that, "If the neocons hate her for being 'a liberal', then she must be their worst nightmare"? In fact, short of getting another Republican into the White House, they see her as the next best thing.
It's misdirection again: keep the spotlight on her; keep throwing darts at her, and you'll persuade people that she is what you say. Get enough Democrats to think that Clinton is the antithesis of neoconservatism, and they will vote for her.
Whatever you do, though, don't let the spotlight shine on the "second tier" of Democratic candidates, because they really do stand in opposition to neoconservatism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» A Clinton nomination is a Win-Win for Republicans.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: A Clinton nomination is a Win-Win for Republicans.
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather
» Why they want a Clinton nomination
Posted by: Hans B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Vaxalon2 on Dec 7, 2007 5:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must become the people they trust.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: dover23
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: talkville
» wrong.....people vote according to their social identities
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 7, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One point missing, however, is how willing we are to go along with our own abuse. It's not just the sell-campaign. There's reflected glory in defending the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter that in actuality we are cutting our own throats. Being on the same side with the rich and powerful creates an appearance of belonging to the aristocratic club.
Not really, of course. Except maybe as the sheep's clothing worn by the wolves. Humans need a fiction to live by. Conservative's myth of "noblesse oblige" no longer even applies. But Good=rich, even when patently unjust.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Dec 7, 2007 6:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neo-conservatives are indeed striving to develop and maintain an aristocracy. To further that end they have adopted the science of marketing psychology (which seems to be the only science they believe in). Without intensive marketing efforts it would be impossible to force informed people to consistently vote against their own interests.
I know conservatives who are reasonable people. They have been duped by the neo-conservatives. It isn't fair to paint them with the same brush. They will be as horrified as the rest of us when they see what they have wrought.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: LauriJean
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: elyusium
» RE: We must finish with this authoritarianism.
Posted by: Upset
» RE: We must finish with this authoritarianism.
Posted by: Lauren
» actually you've got that backwards...authoritarianism is about following leaders, not becoming one
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pinget on Dec 7, 2007 7:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fear of taxes
Posted by: Lauren
» So they elect Republicans who have ballooned the national debt?
Posted by: Sojourner
» God forbid that Southerners
Posted by: hurricane hugo
» I beg to differ
Posted by: marid
» RE: Period. End of. It's that simple (not quite)
Posted by: aka_bozo
» that's more to the point and more honest
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-------------------- SHOCK & AWE------------------------
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.
clarence swinney
political research historian
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: clarence swinney
Posted by: Lauren
» Quit using facts,
Posted by: marid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrSuess on Dec 7, 2007 7:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you suppress the true differences between the parties- as the nightly news has done, and drop the differences to just abortion and homosexuality- there is nothing irrational about poor people (most born again Christians are the working poor) choosing to vote for the Republicans.
But there is downside to this that the Republican strategizers have not counted on. When the Republicans become too associated with born again Christians (mainly poor uneducated people) they loose the well educated middle class. My father is a lifetime Republican- he is the “business of America is business” type of Republican. Giuliani is the only Republican who is playing well with this group. Romney could- but has not focused on them. McCain move away from this group right at the start of the election cycle- and has not moved back. But Giuliani cannot win. When the business of America is business Republicans learn about how badly Giuliani ran New York- he will loose their respect. I already know what my fathers reaction will be when he sees the scandals about Giuliani ‘s “wives” and sees Giuliani in women’s clothing. And my father is fairly tolerant. I cannot see my father voting for someone like Huckabee who doesn’t believe in evolution. My father hates Hillary- but in a choice between Huckabee and Hillary- my father would probably fail to vote for the first time in his 80 year life.
The Republican party has ceased to carry the “business of America is business” message- and this is the part of the party that has held the middle class. No one in the media is focusing on the fact that the current Republican crowd is extremely weak among middle class voters. The media makes it seem that 90% of America is born again. That is not even close to true.
I think that part of the events in the Democratic sweep in the last election was the movement of middle class voters. The Republicans are focusing on disenfranchising the poor- but are totally ignoring the largest part of their voting block- the middle class. If the middle class swings- and I think that is very possible in the upcoming election- you will see an incredible change in the parties.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: elyusium
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aberdeen on Dec 7, 2007 7:32 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"All men are created equal" and "democracy" are nice sounding catch phrases that serve the aristocracy well, when what is really meant is that "all WASP men are created equal" and "democracy" means votes purchased by the highest bidder.
Modern liberals really need to grow up about sin and the evil that men (and women) do. For the most part, they really represent the naive among us, just as much as Joe Red-State American, who consistently votes against his own flesh and blood.
How quickly supposedly anti-war, pro-justice, human rights and freedom progressives forget that Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Washington and the rest fomented a violent revolution, practised human slavery and segregation, butchered natives, subjugated women and children and all the while, padded their own pockets in the process.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What's your point?
Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: unAmerican?
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
# 8 BUSHECONOVOMITS II
JOBS
NET NEW JOBS PER MONTH
Clinton—237,000
Carter----218,000
Reagan---175,000
Bush II----70,000 (He brags on this-wow)
TOTAL STOCK MARKET GROWTH
PERCENT INCREASE PER YEAR
Clinton---41%
Bush I----21
Reagan---17
Carter------5
Bush II-----4 ( he calls this Zoom?)
How? Yes, much money has been made as the stocks climbed out of deep hole.
Example—Cisco zoomed from $75 to $15. Deep hole. Then, over six years it zoomed to $35.
S& P just recently reached it’s 2000 Level.
One-Half the Dow thousands just go back to 2000 level. Not Dow 30.
HOME COSTS
Average annual income to buy an average priced home
2000-3.2 years----2006—5.4 years
An increase of 68% over six years.
The next noise you hear will be Foreclosure Boom
INFLATION
Ignore gasoline—home prices—education prices—heath care prices
Everything is beautiful if you can control the numbers.
MONEY SUPPLY
M-3
Increase in each decade
1970—1207 Billion
1980---2266
1990---2612
2000---3693 (6 years)
Increase per year for each decade
1970—120
1980---226
1990---261
2000---615 (6 years) will hit 800?
Life is grand when Chairman and all Federal Reserve Officials are “Conservative” Republicans
Ok! So the Europeans can buy our goods now—
In 2000 it took $.83 to buy a Euro. Now it takes $1.37
3 course-set lunch—London-$61.50—Nyc-$45
Four Seasons Room—London-$1,000—Nyc-$465
Typical--Shamed of increase so stopped showing M-3 Total Money Supply on reports.
DEBT—
1980—Less than 1000 Billion (after 200 years)
1990---4,000 (12 years of Conservative Republicanism)
2000---5700
2007--- 8881 (7-10-07)
wow! More Spend and Borrow let Kids Pay Tomorrow Conservatism
Homeowner Equity has decresed below any point since 1945.
SPENDING
Clinton last budget 1.84 Trillion. Bush up to 2.9 with one budget to go.
Reagan increased Total Sending by 80%. Bush may tie LBJ at 60%.
Note how Heritage-AEI and all Conservatives count only one-half of the budget as their presidents responsibility. Watch them on Revenues. They will cheat. They will use correlations where there is no connection.
SAVINGS
Total National Savings has gone negative for first time since Conservative Big Crash
PROFITS
Corporate profits at all time high
Buy overseas at $.50 cent per hour labor and sell to suckers as tho $10 per hour labor
Keep minimum wage as low as possible.
Use two part time instead one full time
Do not pay Insurance.
Maximize Profits like good Christians.
Ever hear of optimizing profits?
Buy Washington. It is cheap.
INTEREST RATES
Republican Federal Reserve let Clinton end with a 6.5 % rate then few months later gave Bush a 1% rate. If this Federal Reserve is non-partisan I will shoot a 61 tomorrow.
Greenspan gave Clinton 13 significant rate hikes during campaign years.
Everything is beautiful if you are Mega-Rich.
Clarence Swinney
Political Research Historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations
Burlington nc
cwswinney@netzero.net
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Bush numbers are actually a lot worse
Posted by: ReallyBearish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PRESIDENT REAGAN SCANDALS
INVESTIGATIONS OF IMPORTANT OFFICIALS
Attorney General—Cabinet--two OIC investigations-no charge
Asst. Attorney General—No Charge
Secretary of Defense—Cabinet—Pardoned
Asst. Sec. Of Defense—Guilty--to Prison
Secretary of Labor—Cabinet—Not Guilty
Secretary of Interior—Cabinet—Guilty—fined
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty—Pardoned
National Security Agency—Director---Cabinet---Resigned
Asst. Secretary of Navy—--Guilty—Fined
Dep. Secretary of Air Force-Guilty—Fined
Director of CIA—Cabinet—Died during investigation
Asst. Director of CIA—Guilty—Fined
Director of HUD—Cabinet--Pled Fifth
Asst. Director of HUD—Guilty
Director of Superfund—Guilty—to Prison
Director of FAA—Guilty-Fined
Director of NASA-Guilty—Fined
Special Asst to President—Guilty
Communications Director for President—Guilty
EPA Administrator—Resigned
Asst. Secretary of State—Guilty
9 Cabinet Members—
REAGANGATES (32)
Illwind-gate (biggie)
Superfund-gate
Hud
Wed-Tech
Interior
Labor
Oval Office
Lt Colonel
Iran-Contra
Basement
Faa
Nasa
Pentagon
Korea
S & L (folks! I think we hit the jackpot—come and get it the vaults are unguarded)
Epa
Postal
Agriculture
Hhs
Home loan
Veterans
Fema
Legal Services
Civil Rights
Transportation
Product Safety
Economic Development
Synthetic Fuels
Social Security
Land Management
Osha
Cia
Sources—
Haynes Johnson book “Sleepwalking”
“When The Pentagon Was For Sale”—Andy Pasztor—(awesome list of criminals)
2 books titled “Scandals”
“The Clothes Lost The Emperor”-Paul Slansky (day by day chronology of 1980’s)
“Stealing From America”—
“Landslide”-Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus
Nathan Miller book states 233 were investigated
Haynes Johnson states 138 were --charged--indicted--found guilty -- investigated
p.s.—Newt and Gang spent $110,000,000-(GAO number) on Hearings and Investigations on Clinton
and one—(yes 1) person working for President Clinton was Found Guilty of a Felony. Evil man took few trips to ball games , etc. No quid pro quo per OIC –Pals doing what they had done for years—take pal to events. Pled guilty for did not have finances to fight the government and Smaltzsmear. His boss fought 37 such charges and was found not guilty on each charge.
I would appreciate anyone correcting what I write. I try to be honest but do make errors.
Clarence Swinney
Political Historian
Lifeaholics of America—president
Burlington nc
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks for the memories, Clarence !
Posted by: Rayosun
» Thanks for the ammo
Posted by: marid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: channing on Dec 7, 2007 7:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aristocratic-Dependency as both a mind-set and social-infrastructure is an extremely valuable insight with solid examples in many areas of society, but the "illegal immigration" issue is not one of them, at least not in the way the author interprets it here.
There really are between 13 and 19 million people here with no papers, SSI numbers, birth records or "Constitution Tests", all from one country. If these people were Iraqi's, you might understand the reasons for it under current conditions. These are not however from a war-torn or tsunami-stricken country, they're from a peaceful but somewhat less prosperous Mexico. If they were from China or Russia it would be called an "invasion", and the people fighting it wouldn't be labeled "racists".
I have close family living in four different cities across the US, and all of them have observed an influx of undocumented Mexicans over the past few years. We've always had Mexicans here, though, so what's the difference now?
Millions of Mexicans legally immigrated here. They learned the Constitution, the laws, integrated with communities and generally prospered along with the other several hundred ethnic groups living here. This undocumented group differs however, and perhaps it has something to do with the "process of public documentation", the above board "formality" which requires Reading and Testing on the Constitution and other common Laws, perhaps it's as simple as being honest with your fellow man?
The US currently legalizes 1,000,000 immigrants every year, maintaining a total US population of 300,000,000. This must be divided up according to priorities that include Humanitarian/Catastrophic Relief, Diplomatic/Political Persecution, Marriages,and those legally waiting in line. All of these people go through the hoops, and history shows all groups fully integrate by the 2-3rd generation.
This situation is different, and this is where the author is off-cue. The "aristocratic interests" have combined NAFTA with a deliberate avoidance of the illegal border crossings by both failing to secure the border and failing to prosecute the illegal employers. The last thing the aristocracy wants is for the border to shut down: Cheap, unquestioning, undocumented labor is sooo damn profitable!
I believe the actual reason right-wingers from red-states, in their usual aristocratic mode, use this issue are:
1. It is "passionate" and making "passionate friends" on a single issue at a time when they don't have many substantive issues... they know they really can't run a modern government, so, like abortion and euthanasia, they "ride" it;
2. They know they're not really going to threaten the realaristocracy by pushing the issue since "humanitarian" concerns preclude sudden or drastic measures or changes;
3. Illegal border crossing is a real, substantive and national issue when the number involved in this one group is roughly the equivalent of the population of New York City, all here, without any legal documents.
Americans will need to reach a consensus on two issues:
1. The Total Desired Population of the US: 300, 400, 500 million?
2. The possibility of adopting Mexico as our 51st State. Full legal integration may be worth the effort?
What is Unconstitutional and Undebatable however, is No One is above the Law, including both Presidents and Mexicans all the same! The author of this article attacked this issue without mentioning laws, and at the same time didn't seem to notice that the US aristocracy doesn't want the border closed or erased because like the global drug market, "illegal" makes it all work out just fine, and oh ...soo damn profitable!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: channing
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: daw13 on Dec 7, 2007 8:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nevertheless.... Thanks alternet for making this forum possible. Better than mainstream journalism and far better than nothing.
One comment on this issue, not thus far mentioned: Conservatives are selling fascism. Join our gang and you'll be protected. If you're white, Xtian and behave yourself, you'll be allowed to beat up and prosper a little at the expense of those who aren't. Reagan's unspoken message and why he got elected. Best deal you'll get. Dems are just the other puppet of the ruling class and can't offer you more than rhetoric.
Powerful message with too much truth behind it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: elyusium
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: Joe
» RE: Joe - Do you like our system better than democracy?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Azraelsjudgement on Dec 7, 2007 8:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right claims we need to follow their way for safety and the left claim we have to follow them for the greater good.
Both sides dont trust people to live their own lives or can be trusted with all their rights.
The left and the right both want control of the federal government to run things their way. How about we each run things our own way locally and strip the federal government of power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Left and Right
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Left and Right
Posted by: masterjc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 7, 2007 9:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Depressing isn't it? What do we do about stupid people? Time for a Revolution! But that takes smart, strong, brave people.
Easier to just turn on the TV and have another beer...
I want to save Humanity-it is just People I can't stand-
John Lennon
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As my IWW Grandmother used to say-
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Dec 7, 2007 10:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: DEMOCRACY??
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Dec 7, 2007 10:16 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They tried to put the 'vanguard' inthe Soviet Union........but the people got sick of the 'peoples elite' and threw them out. They were lucky they weren't executed, like in Romania.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: smalldave on Dec 7, 2007 10:20 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You miss the point
Posted by: WitchyNy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: James W. Harris on Dec 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives seem to want to do it in the name of God and tradition and morality and protecting big business.
Liberals seem to want to do it in the name of rationality and helping others and protecting people from themselves.
But it all ends up as the same thing, ever-increasing State control. And a massive State apparatus that power-loving authoritarians, whether Democrat or Republican, can use to further advance their agendas.
I think the real political fight has to be between pro-war, anti-civil liberties, pro-force authoritarians, versus anti-war, anti-State, tolerant civil libertarians.
Example: Supporters of Hillary or Rudy, versus supporters of Kucinich or Paul.
The John Birch Society, of all things, is better on the Bill of Rights and the Iraq War than Hillary Clinton or Rudy G. are. So is the Green Party. So are Libertarians.
I see some messy, but interesting alliances ahead, if the war is to be ended, civil liberties restored, and abusive State power reined in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Exactly, "Authoritarian" is a better word than "Aristocratic"
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LawStud on Dec 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course today's "aristocrats" can't lay claim to anything close to the actual reality of aristocracy. Where is the military service? Where is the legitimate concern of duty? Where is the consumption of peanuts from a loved-ones stool? The modern rich are just that- rich. All they care about is money, and to a certain extent power but only the power to make more money. That veneer of "class" hierarchy is spotty at best at the present and the simply motivation of greed is never too far from the surface. As soon as the public legitimately realizes that the obsfucating issue of the "class war" for the window dressing that it is, (hopefully) they will then realize that they aren't bound by some bullshit social structure and stop letting the guilt of "station" keep them from getting their piece.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: verything has to start somewhere
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Don Garb on Dec 7, 2007 12:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a famous economist who said that, what was his name? I'm sure it will come to me if I can just find my hookah!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Capitalism is the mistaken belief ...
Posted by: Rayosun
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Dec 7, 2007 12:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican Party is anything but conservative.
Remember that Barry Goldwater's wife said--and I quote--"He [Goldwater] hated it that the right-wing zealots took over the party," she said. "Barry hated the right wing."
Richard Nixon was not a conservative-he was a right-wing extremist/corporatist.
Ronald Reagan was not a conservative--he was a radical right-wing fascist.
George Herbert Walker Bush is not conservative--he is a radical right-wing fascist.
Bill Clinton is neither liberal or conservative--he's a radical right-wing fascist (as are all so-called "Reagan Democrats").
George Walker Bush is not a conservative--he is radical right-wing fascist.
Dick Cheney is not conservative--he's a radical right-wing fascist.
The list is endless.
The Republican Party hasn't been conservative since the 1964 Republican Convention, when the right-wing took control of the party to use government to enforce private morality and enthrone corporate America at the expense of the middle-class.
More to the point, Republicans must resort to marketing tricks to "sell" their ideas, because, as the Republicans are well aware, their policy's and idea's are extremely unpopular with the American people.
It's interesting to note that while Americans consistently showed disapproval of Reagan's policies in the opinion polls, they continued to re-elect that lying old extremist fascist coot/bastard.
That's the triumph of marketing over reason--and Americans, it appears, have bought it hook, line and sinker.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No, go ahead, make too fine a point of it, 'cause you're right
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Upset on Dec 7, 2007 12:43 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are arguments on both sides. Don't they deserve to be listened to and judged?
I hate this tendency to rash judgement. Slow down -- calling an adversary stupid is not an argument it is a label.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Labels are not arguments
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Dec 7, 2007 1:49 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rayosun on Dec 7, 2007 2:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How anyone can recall Reagan and his administration "fondly" shows how completely our U.S. mainstream media are controlled - not by LIBERALS, but - by the friends and allies of the rich and the powerful, i.e. CONSERVATIVES.
See http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 7, 2007 2:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: sofla100...
Posted by: channing
» RE: sofla100...
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: sofla100...
Posted by: channing
» RE: Free Trade, North American Union and "Dumbing Down" of Americans
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Free Trade, North American Union and "Dumbing Down" of Americans
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VeryBlessed on Dec 7, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There's a lot of truth in conservatism
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 7, 2007 8:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/2760.htm
Now, much has been said about this NAFTA Superhighway. It had been theorized this would be a new, separately built corridor to move Chinese and foreign made goods from non-unionized Mexican ports to Kansas City for North American distribution and on to Canada for distribution there. However, it appears much more likely the NAFTA Superhighway will just use the existing interstate system and toll/turnpike roads (often administered now by foreign companies), perhaps with some upgrades. Why is this significant? It is the beginning of the erasure of the lines between the USA, Canada and Mexico. In the future, trade and other disputes will be put to a NAFTA committee for binding resolution. The USA, Canada, and Mexico will have no say in this, as the NAFTA committee will make the final, binding decision. See where this is leading? Americas aristocracy, which values commerce and money more than anything else, would love to see erasure of national boundaries in order to gut the worker and environmental protections Americans have. Outsourcing finally moves then to the internal operation of the USA, an "internally outsourced" USA. A cancer driven within America. They have also "dumbed down" the average American to accept this "free trade" crap. But what he or she has coming with this is the (yet to come) sweatshops and shanty towns of a new America. What Mexico and India are today.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Dec 7, 2007 9:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are necessary actions in any sane society - but not this one - it's like a bunch of adolescents at the "Frat" (not White) House...thinking that gross economic inequality and no taxation will solve every ill of society. And deficits - no problem! If we ran our private lives like this, we'd be filing for bankruptcy left and right. Well as you can see by the induced housing "crisis", this is all falling down as a house of cards always does.
Maybe, since unfortunately, popular culture is dominant, we need slogans like "Affordable Housing - That's Hot"....since nothing sensible gets any attention these days...it's just Paris Hilton, iPods and mindless consumerism while plutocrats pick the working man's pockets. Yes Virginia, we need taxes to pay for all of the wonders of America that everyone enjoys - libraries, roads, and so much more, and if you don't believe it, just get out there and drive and hope you don't end up on a crumbling bridge someday.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: Joe
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zorro on Dec 7, 2007 11:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Dec 8, 2007 2:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marid on Dec 8, 2007 7:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best Democracy money can Buy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Brain dead American public
Posted by: UndergroundPirate
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mark Spangler on Dec 8, 2007 8:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too much of our "American Dream" thought process is the notion that in America you can become anything that you want to. This is not, nor has it ever been true. There are scads of strikes against people... economic impairments, race, educational disadvantages, etc. But the conservative view is that this is the fault of the individual, and poster boys for the lazy, shiftless lower class abound. The reason that working people buy into this is because they've never learned to think as a group, but rather, continue to think as cannibalistic individuals. The divide and conquer strategy is alive and well and this is a major stepping stone to conservative success.
It is maddening to try to explain this to my blue collar friends and relatives without sounding haughty and condescending. Even more so since invented problems like "immigration" and "social security crisis" seem to way heavily on their brow.
I've used a fool proof policy to determine what is true and what is not. I simply ask myself "who is concerned about this and where have I heard it?" Is a conservative boosting it? Then it probably is a threat to my livelihood. Do I hear it on Fox News? Probably a lie. Then, I do the digging. It hasn't failed me yet.
The key to fighting this conservative scourge is to not fall prey to its enticements. You can't be one of them and fight them. You have to be above the fray. You ARE NOT going to be as successful living your life this way. You ARE NOT going to get rich, and our society rewards those with the dough. This is why even lightweight conservatives like Pat Sajak can sneak in Rosie O'Donnell digs on his game show and not be called on it, while a truly vile human like Donald Trump gets the kudos.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Use This Test...
Posted by: macdon1
» RE: Use This Test...
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Dec 9, 2007 7:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tim Brown on Dec 9, 2007 1:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite reaction to the contrary, Cenk's point about manipulation is quite valid. Our citizens have been trained to believe things based on the flimsiest of "facts" culled together in slick sound bites by public relations professionals whose job is to manipulate public opinion.
It's time that progressives started fighting fire with fire and emulated the PR efforts of the corporate elite.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cenk is on Target With His Commentary...
Posted by: irenicus
» Phony PR...nope
Posted by: Tim Brown
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Dec 9, 2007 3:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: riotoustanpdx on Dec 9, 2007 6:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, there is no "Culture War," or "cultures wars" that necessitate this being an issue. The Culture Wars myth is a Device used to "divide and conquer" the beliefs of all of us in the Democratic Republic, as opposed the "capitalistic society." that power-wielders want to displace the republic with.
Second, we have been dependent economically on foreign labor for decades, especially the Mexican workers who come here both legally and otherwise.
Thirdly, the people of the (31) United States of the Republic of Mexico have a great deal in common with the people of the (48) United States of America. So much so, that we share a common history in two languages (not counting, of course, the indigenous languages of the vanquished peoples). An exceedingly integrated and common host of experiences that unite us one people divided by military events and an arbitrary path of a river called the Rio Grande.
Strip those of us in the north of our racism, and parochial attitudes about language, inject us with the ability to face the truth, and we would see the innumerable benefits of uniting two republics into one great democratic republic.
The result: a longer, defensible coastline; an integrated workforce that is more equitable for all; a smaller southern border that is easily managed; abundant natural resources that are both more meaningful and accessible through the technologies that we share; economic prosperity that results in the emergence of a growing middle class rising from presently underemployed minions. "More meaningful resources" are defined as the abundant areas of Mexico that naturally are suited to capture Solar energy; convertible to ecologically sound "farms" of solar energy that potentially can supply all of the energy needs of the northern 48 states, and the labor force that is waiting for the opportunity to build the new infrastructure of the Solar Age in energy.
We will, if we become smart enough to invest in high-speed rail lines to connect our cities, need hundreds of thousands of laborers able to build that new infrastructure, to install solar energy hardware on millions of homes and businesses across the landscape of both "republics," and much more.
So what is all the griping about borders and illegal immigration? We simply have to take the truth serum and wake up to the realities and challenges that we have in common.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johndoraemi on Dec 9, 2007 6:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many, many obvious crimes go unpunished, countenanced by both political parties. Just today we learned how Pelosi knew about CIA torture since 2002, and agreed to play ball.
This abomination of a government is not a democracy, and never has been. It has always represented the aristocracy first, with appeasement of the rabble a secondary consideration.
Some fundamental changes are needed to take back a lot of that power from the federal bohemoth, and to restore it to the people. Jefferson had something poignant to say about that in the Declaration of Independence. The part about the "long train of abuses and usurpations..." (I expect them to stop teaching this one in public schools in the not too distant future.)
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anonymous black writer on Dec 10, 2007 11:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 12:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This country was founded by aristocrats. To state that aristocracy is un-American is to buy into a naive view of the United States as the great standard-bearer of liberty and freedom, which is itself a nationalist public relations message, an ideology serving the selfish interests of aristocrats.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And who are the American aristocrats?
Posted by: colinmeister
» Don't forget Sen. Kerry.....
Posted by: gellero
» RE: Don't forget Sen. Kerry.....
Posted by: The Heretic
» No Shortage in the Dems & Repubs of Aristocrats
Posted by: rjgwood
» RE: So, So?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: So, So?
Posted by: moflard
» 'progression?'
Posted by: zorro
» RE: Not so
Posted by: BunkerHill
» RE: Not so
Posted by: zorro
» RE: Not so
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Not so
Posted by: aberdeen
» RE: Not so
Posted by: gellero
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 12:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the whole
Posted by: bcain
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 1:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These hustlers fail to mention the power dynamics that accompany the rise of an ultra-rich class. Power is a zero sum game - it comes from decreasing the power of others, subordinating them, controlling them. Even if all boats were to rise in the new economic tide, so that everyone is wealthier in absolute terms than before (which is not actually happening, though it is claimed to be the case), as long as some boats are rising faster than others and financial inequality is growing, this trend will translate into increased power differentials and further abuse of low-status groups by high-status groups.
Wealth might be somewhat flexible in that its absolute value can be increased, even if it can never be infinite. But there is always a fixed supply of power in a society, and obtaining more of it requires taking some from other people. This always occurs when economic inequality grows, despite the (theoretical) possibility of all people becoming wealthier together even when inequality is rising.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 7, 2007 1:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To balance the rhetoric the Democrats have to emotionalize the issues, galvanize the anger and discontent , not try to abate it .
Where's the discontent , the anger , the rage ... If you don't own it, why would anybody else want to. Man Up Democrats.
Eric Alterman has a good article on the media.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/alterman
Democrats need to challlenge the media to report the truth. Joe Klein was a good start. Dems need to dismiss experts who were wrong. The old Iraq experts who got it all wrong are back in business. Shame them ...
Dems need to dismiss discredited people. Take Newt Gingrich , when asked Dems should say he is a liar and philanderer and refuse comment to anything and everything he says. The Dems need to characterize their opponents , especially those that have been discredited and refuse to give them any positive response. Example: John Bolten = verified nut case , Paul Wolfowitz = liar and incompetent and so on. The Dems need to coordinate this so everybodies on the same page and gives the same characterization.
I, like so many Dems are tired of seeing these war criminals , liars , cheats get back in the limelight after they have been thouroughly discredited.
Preach what they did wrong and fight against it .When an expert or one of their own is discredited , put a God Damned stake through their heart by characterization.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ... Newt
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: zizizzi
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: Solar Wind
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: zorro
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe (?)...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Democrats have to Preach what they believe (?)...
Posted by: elyusium
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 7, 2007 3:53 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy ... [it] is incompatible with democracy, prosperity and civilization in general" ----- well, this is probably the most ridiculous, and divisive statement I've ever seen written - many conservatives see liberals as nothing more than children spending all their money on candy and never really wanting to work,an equally ridiculous and divisive statement -
wonder why this country is so polarized?
Loss of manufacturing jobs in this country is a big problem - Carolinas especially as much of theirs was furniture - guess where that comes from now!..but we can look To NAFTA (democrats brain child) for much of that..
Extreme views such as this article does nothing to present a realistic analysis of anything.. all it does is to help perserve the preception that there is a good and bad political side to this country - in the end they are all the same..if you have money you'l lwant to keep it..if you dont, you'll want to earn it.. if someone breaks into your house, you'll want to defend your family - basically not much is different
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Words for the ignorant... Exactly!
Posted by: dover23
» RE: Words for the ignorant... hardly!
Posted by: boydranchitos
» you are exactly what this article is about
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Intellect
» the danger that destroyed American democracy...
Posted by: dover23
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Hovey
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: weslen1
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: cardboardurinal
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: talkville
» Words to live by
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words to live by
Posted by: talkville
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: The Heretic
» RE: Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: photon's feather on Dec 7, 2007 4:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocons 'hate' the Clintons. What a joke! Just watch Bill Clinton next time he is hanging out with his pal, the elder George Bush - you know, the one he let off the hook by dropping the Iran-Contra case. Don't think that Clinton II wouldn't do likewise for Bush II.
Isn't the war-mongering Corporate Clinton at the top of the polls in large part because of the misguided notion that, "If the neocons hate her for being 'a liberal', then she must be their worst nightmare"? In fact, short of getting another Republican into the White House, they see her as the next best thing.
It's misdirection again: keep the spotlight on her; keep throwing darts at her, and you'll persuade people that she is what you say. Get enough Democrats to think that Clinton is the antithesis of neoconservatism, and they will vote for her.
Whatever you do, though, don't let the spotlight shine on the "second tier" of Democratic candidates, because they really do stand in opposition to neoconservatism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» A Clinton nomination is a Win-Win for Republicans.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: A Clinton nomination is a Win-Win for Republicans.
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather
» Why they want a Clinton nomination
Posted by: Hans B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Vaxalon2 on Dec 7, 2007 5:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must become the people they trust.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: dover23
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: People do not think rationally
Posted by: talkville
» wrong.....people vote according to their social identities
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 7, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One point missing, however, is how willing we are to go along with our own abuse. It's not just the sell-campaign. There's reflected glory in defending the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter that in actuality we are cutting our own throats. Being on the same side with the rich and powerful creates an appearance of belonging to the aristocratic club.
Not really, of course. Except maybe as the sheep's clothing worn by the wolves. Humans need a fiction to live by. Conservative's myth of "noblesse oblige" no longer even applies. But Good=rich, even when patently unjust.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Dec 7, 2007 6:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neo-conservatives are indeed striving to develop and maintain an aristocracy. To further that end they have adopted the science of marketing psychology (which seems to be the only science they believe in). Without intensive marketing efforts it would be impossible to force informed people to consistently vote against their own interests.
I know conservatives who are reasonable people. They have been duped by the neo-conservatives. It isn't fair to paint them with the same brush. They will be as horrified as the rest of us when they see what they have wrought.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: LauriJean
» RE: The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: elyusium
» RE: We must finish with this authoritarianism.
Posted by: Upset
» RE: We must finish with this authoritarianism.
Posted by: Lauren
» actually you've got that backwards...authoritarianism is about following leaders, not becoming one
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pinget on Dec 7, 2007 7:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fear of taxes
Posted by: Lauren
» So they elect Republicans who have ballooned the national debt?
Posted by: Sojourner
» God forbid that Southerners
Posted by: hurricane hugo
» I beg to differ
Posted by: marid
» RE: Period. End of. It's that simple (not quite)
Posted by: aka_bozo
» that's more to the point and more honest
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-------------------- SHOCK & AWE------------------------
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.
clarence swinney
political research historian
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: clarence swinney
Posted by: Lauren
» Quit using facts,
Posted by: marid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrSuess on Dec 7, 2007 7:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you suppress the true differences between the parties- as the nightly news has done, and drop the differences to just abortion and homosexuality- there is nothing irrational about poor people (most born again Christians are the working poor) choosing to vote for the Republicans.
But there is downside to this that the Republican strategizers have not counted on. When the Republicans become too associated with born again Christians (mainly poor uneducated people) they loose the well educated middle class. My father is a lifetime Republican- he is the “business of America is business” type of Republican. Giuliani is the only Republican who is playing well with this group. Romney could- but has not focused on them. McCain move away from this group right at the start of the election cycle- and has not moved back. But Giuliani cannot win. When the business of America is business Republicans learn about how badly Giuliani ran New York- he will loose their respect. I already know what my fathers reaction will be when he sees the scandals about Giuliani ‘s “wives” and sees Giuliani in women’s clothing. And my father is fairly tolerant. I cannot see my father voting for someone like Huckabee who doesn’t believe in evolution. My father hates Hillary- but in a choice between Huckabee and Hillary- my father would probably fail to vote for the first time in his 80 year life.
The Republican party has ceased to carry the “business of America is business” message- and this is the part of the party that has held the middle class. No one in the media is focusing on the fact that the current Republican crowd is extremely weak among middle class voters. The media makes it seem that 90% of America is born again. That is not even close to true.
I think that part of the events in the Democratic sweep in the last election was the movement of middle class voters. The Republicans are focusing on disenfranchising the poor- but are totally ignoring the largest part of their voting block- the middle class. If the middle class swings- and I think that is very possible in the upcoming election- you will see an incredible change in the parties.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: elyusium
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aberdeen on Dec 7, 2007 7:32 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"All men are created equal" and "democracy" are nice sounding catch phrases that serve the aristocracy well, when what is really meant is that "all WASP men are created equal" and "democracy" means votes purchased by the highest bidder.
Modern liberals really need to grow up about sin and the evil that men (and women) do. For the most part, they really represent the naive among us, just as much as Joe Red-State American, who consistently votes against his own flesh and blood.
How quickly supposedly anti-war, pro-justice, human rights and freedom progressives forget that Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Washington and the rest fomented a violent revolution, practised human slavery and segregation, butchered natives, subjugated women and children and all the while, padded their own pockets in the process.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What's your point?
Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: unAmerican?
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
# 8 BUSHECONOVOMITS II
JOBS
NET NEW JOBS PER MONTH
Clinton—237,000
Carter----218,000
Reagan---175,000
Bush II----70,000 (He brags on this-wow)
TOTAL STOCK MARKET GROWTH
PERCENT INCREASE PER YEAR
Clinton---41%
Bush I----21
Reagan---17
Carter------5
Bush II-----4 ( he calls this Zoom?)
How? Yes, much money has been made as the stocks climbed out of deep hole.
Example—Cisco zoomed from $75 to $15. Deep hole. Then, over six years it zoomed to $35.
S& P just recently reached it’s 2000 Level.
One-Half the Dow thousands just go back to 2000 level. Not Dow 30.
HOME COSTS
Average annual income to buy an average priced home
2000-3.2 years----2006—5.4 years
An increase of 68% over six years.
The next noise you hear will be Foreclosure Boom
INFLATION
Ignore gasoline—home prices—education prices—heath care prices
Everything is beautiful if you can control the numbers.
MONEY SUPPLY
M-3
Increase in each decade
1970—1207 Billion
1980---2266
1990---2612
2000---3693 (6 years)
Increase per year for each decade
1970—120
1980---226
1990---261
2000---615 (6 years) will hit 800?
Life is grand when Chairman and all Federal Reserve Officials are “Conservative” Republicans
Ok! So the Europeans can buy our goods now—
In 2000 it took $.83 to buy a Euro. Now it takes $1.37
3 course-set lunch—London-$61.50—Nyc-$45
Four Seasons Room—London-$1,000—Nyc-$465
Typical--Shamed of increase so stopped showing M-3 Total Money Supply on reports.
DEBT—
1980—Less than 1000 Billion (after 200 years)
1990---4,000 (12 years of Conservative Republicanism)
2000---5700
2007--- 8881 (7-10-07)
wow! More Spend and Borrow let Kids Pay Tomorrow Conservatism
Homeowner Equity has decresed below any point since 1945.
SPENDING
Clinton last budget 1.84 Trillion. Bush up to 2.9 with one budget to go.
Reagan increased Total Sending by 80%. Bush may tie LBJ at 60%.
Note how Heritage-AEI and all Conservatives count only one-half of the budget as their presidents responsibility. Watch them on Revenues. They will cheat. They will use correlations where there is no connection.
SAVINGS
Total National Savings has gone negative for first time since Conservative Big Crash
PROFITS
Corporate profits at all time high
Buy overseas at $.50 cent per hour labor and sell to suckers as tho $10 per hour labor
Keep minimum wage as low as possible.
Use two part time instead one full time
Do not pay Insurance.
Maximize Profits like good Christians.
Ever hear of optimizing profits?
Buy Washington. It is cheap.
INTEREST RATES
Republican Federal Reserve let Clinton end with a 6.5 % rate then few months later gave Bush a 1% rate. If this Federal Reserve is non-partisan I will shoot a 61 tomorrow.
Greenspan gave Clinton 13 significant rate hikes during campaign years.
Everything is beautiful if you are Mega-Rich.
Clarence Swinney
Political Research Historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations
Burlington nc
cwswinney@netzero.net
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Bush numbers are actually a lot worse
Posted by: ReallyBearish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PRESIDENT REAGAN SCANDALS
INVESTIGATIONS OF IMPORTANT OFFICIALS
Attorney General—Cabinet--two OIC investigations-no charge
Asst. Attorney General—No Charge
Secretary of Defense—Cabinet—Pardoned
Asst. Sec. Of Defense—Guilty--to Prison
Secretary of Labor—Cabinet—Not Guilty
Secretary of Interior—Cabinet—Guilty—fined
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty—Pardoned
National Security Agency—Director---Cabinet---Resigned
Asst. Secretary of Navy—--Guilty—Fined
Dep. Secretary of Air Force-Guilty—Fined
Director of CIA—Cabinet—Died during investigation
Asst. Director of CIA—Guilty—Fined
Director of HUD—Cabinet--Pled Fifth
Asst. Director of HUD—Guilty
Director of Superfund—Guilty—to Prison
Director of FAA—Guilty-Fined
Director of NASA-Guilty—Fined
Special Asst to President—Guilty
Communications Director for President—Guilty
EPA Administrator—Resigned
Asst. Secretary of State—Guilty
9 Cabinet Members—
REAGANGATES (32)
Illwind-gate (biggie)
Superfund-gate
Hud
Wed-Tech
Interior
Labor
Oval Office
Lt Colonel
Iran-Contra
Basement
Faa
Nasa
Pentagon
Korea
S & L (folks! I think we hit the jackpot—come and get it the vaults are unguarded)
Epa
Postal
Agriculture
Hhs
Home loan
Veterans
Fema
Legal Services
Civil Rights
Transportation
Product Safety
Economic Development
Synthetic Fuels
Social Security
Land Management
Osha
Cia
Sources—
Haynes Johnson book “Sleepwalking”
“When The Pentagon Was For Sale”—Andy Pasztor—(awesome list of criminals)
2 books titled “Scandals”
“The Clothes Lost The Emperor”-Paul Slansky (day by day chronology of 1980’s)
“Stealing From America”—
“Landslide”-Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus
Nathan Miller book states 233 were investigated
Haynes Johnson states 138 were --charged--indicted--found guilty -- investigated
p.s.—Newt and Gang spent $110,000,000-(GAO number) on Hearings and Investigations on Clinton
and one—(yes 1) person working for President Clinton was Found Guilty of a Felony. Evil man took few trips to ball games , etc. No quid pro quo per OIC –Pals doing what they had done for years—take pal to events. Pled guilty for did not have finances to fight the government and Smaltzsmear. His boss fought 37 such charges and was found not guilty on each charge.
I would appreciate anyone correcting what I write. I try to be honest but do make errors.
Clarence Swinney
Political Historian
Lifeaholics of America—president
Burlington nc
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks for the memories, Clarence !
Posted by: Rayosun
» Thanks for the ammo
Posted by: marid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: channing on Dec 7, 2007 7:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aristocratic-Dependency as both a mind-set and social-infrastructure is an extremely valuable insight with solid examples in many areas of society, but the "illegal immigration" issue is not one of them, at least not in the way the author interprets it here.
There really are between 13 and 19 million people here with no papers, SSI numbers, birth records or "Constitution Tests", all from one country. If these people were Iraqi's, you might understand the reasons for it under current conditions. These are not however from a war-torn or tsunami-stricken country, they're from a peaceful but somewhat less prosperous Mexico. If they were from China or Russia it would be called an "invasion", and the people fighting it wouldn't be labeled "racists".
I have close family living in four different cities across the US, and all of them have observed an influx of undocumented Mexicans over the past few years. We've always had Mexicans here, though, so what's the difference now?
Millions of Mexicans legally immigrated here. They learned the Constitution, the laws, integrated with communities and generally prospered along with the other several hundred ethnic groups living here. This undocumented group differs however, and perhaps it has something to do with the "process of public documentation", the above board "formality" which requires Reading and Testing on the Constitution and other common Laws, perhaps it's as simple as being honest with your fellow man?
The US currently legalizes 1,000,000 immigrants every year, maintaining a total US population of 300,000,000. This must be divided up according to priorities that include Humanitarian/Catastrophic Relief, Diplomatic/Political Persecution, Marriages,and those legally waiting in line. All of these people go through the hoops, and history shows all groups fully integrate by the 2-3rd generation.
This situation is different, and this is where the author is off-cue. The "aristocratic interests" have combined NAFTA with a deliberate avoidance of the illegal border crossings by both failing to secure the border and failing to prosecute the illegal employers. The last thing the aristocracy wants is for the border to shut down: Cheap, unquestioning, undocumented labor is sooo damn profitable!
I believe the actual reason right-wingers from red-states, in their usual aristocratic mode, use this issue are:
1. It is "passionate" and making "passionate friends" on a single issue at a time when they don't have many substantive issues... they know they really can't run a modern government, so, like abortion and euthanasia, they "ride" it;
2. They know they're not really going to threaten the realaristocracy by pushing the issue since "humanitarian" concerns preclude sudden or drastic measures or changes;
3. Illegal border crossing is a real, substantive and national issue when the number involved in this one group is roughly the equivalent of the population of New York City, all here, without any legal documents.
Americans will need to reach a consensus on two issues:
1. The Total Desired Population of the US: 300, 400, 500 million?
2. The possibility of adopting Mexico as our 51st State. Full legal integration may be worth the effort?
What is Unconstitutional and Undebatable however, is No One is above the Law, including both Presidents and Mexicans all the same! The author of this article attacked this issue without mentioning laws, and at the same time didn't seem to notice that the US aristocracy doesn't want the border closed or erased because like the global drug market, "illegal" makes it all work out just fine, and oh ...soo damn profitable!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: channing
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: daw13 on Dec 7, 2007 8:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nevertheless.... Thanks alternet for making this forum possible. Better than mainstream journalism and far better than nothing.
One comment on this issue, not thus far mentioned: Conservatives are selling fascism. Join our gang and you'll be protected. If you're white, Xtian and behave yourself, you'll be allowed to beat up and prosper a little at the expense of those who aren't. Reagan's unspoken message and why he got elected. Best deal you'll get. Dems are just the other puppet of the ruling class and can't offer you more than rhetoric.
Powerful message with too much truth behind it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: elyusium
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Comments better than article
Posted by: Joe
» RE: Joe - Do you like our system better than democracy?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Azraelsjudgement on Dec 7, 2007 8:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right claims we need to follow their way for safety and the left claim we have to follow them for the greater good.
Both sides dont trust people to live their own lives or can be trusted with all their rights.
The left and the right both want control of the federal government to run things their way. How about we each run things our own way locally and strip the federal government of power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Left and Right
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Left and Right
Posted by: masterjc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 7, 2007 9:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Depressing isn't it? What do we do about stupid people? Time for a Revolution! But that takes smart, strong, brave people.
Easier to just turn on the TV and have another beer...
I want to save Humanity-it is just People I can't stand-
John Lennon
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As my IWW Grandmother used to say-
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Dec 7, 2007 10:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: DEMOCRACY??
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Dec 7, 2007 10:16 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They tried to put the 'vanguard' inthe Soviet Union........but the people got sick of the 'peoples elite' and threw them out. They were lucky they weren't executed, like in Romania.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: smalldave on Dec 7, 2007 10:20 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You miss the point
Posted by: WitchyNy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: James W. Harris on Dec 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives seem to want to do it in the name of God and tradition and morality and protecting big business.
Liberals seem to want to do it in the name of rationality and helping others and protecting people from themselves.
But it all ends up as the same thing, ever-increasing State control. And a massive State apparatus that power-loving authoritarians, whether Democrat or Republican, can use to further advance their agendas.
I think the real political fight has to be between pro-war, anti-civil liberties, pro-force authoritarians, versus anti-war, anti-State, tolerant civil libertarians.
Example: Supporters of Hillary or Rudy, versus supporters of Kucinich or Paul.
The John Birch Society, of all things, is better on the Bill of Rights and the Iraq War than Hillary Clinton or Rudy G. are. So is the Green Party. So are Libertarians.
I see some messy, but interesting alliances ahead, if the war is to be ended, civil liberties restored, and abusive State power reined in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Exactly, "Authoritarian" is a better word than "Aristocratic"
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LawStud on Dec 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course today's "aristocrats" can't lay claim to anything close to the actual reality of aristocracy. Where is the military service? Where is the legitimate concern of duty? Where is the consumption of peanuts from a loved-ones stool? The modern rich are just that- rich. All they care about is money, and to a certain extent power but only the power to make more money. That veneer of "class" hierarchy is spotty at best at the present and the simply motivation of greed is never too far from the surface. As soon as the public legitimately realizes that the obsfucating issue of the "class war" for the window dressing that it is, (hopefully) they will then realize that they aren't bound by some bullshit social structure and stop letting the guilt of "station" keep them from getting their piece.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: verything has to start somewhere
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Don Garb on Dec 7, 2007 12:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a famous economist who said that, what was his name? I'm sure it will come to me if I can just find my hookah!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Capitalism is the mistaken belief ...
Posted by: Rayosun
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Dec 7, 2007 12:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican Party is anything but conservative.
Remember that Barry Goldwater's wife said--and I quote--"He [Goldwater] hated it that the right-wing zealots took over the party," she said. "Barry hated the right wing."
Richard Nixon was not a conservative-he was a right-wing extremist/corporatist.
Ronald Reagan was not a conservative--he was a radical right-wing fascist.
George Herbert Walker Bush is not conservative--he is a radical right-wing fascist.
Bill Clinton is neither liberal or conservative--he's a radical right-wing fascist (as are all so-called "Reagan Democrats").
George Walker Bush is not a conservative--he is radical right-wing fascist.
Dick Cheney is not conservative--he's a radical right-wing fascist.
The list is endless.
The Republican Party hasn't been conservative since the 1964 Republican Convention, when the right-wing took control of the party to use government to enforce private morality and enthrone corporate America at the expense of the middle-class.
More to the point, Republicans must resort to marketing tricks to "sell" their ideas, because, as the Republicans are well aware, their policy's and idea's are extremely unpopular with the American people.
It's interesting to note that while Americans consistently showed disapproval of Reagan's policies in the opinion polls, they continued to re-elect that lying old extremist fascist coot/bastard.
That's the triumph of marketing over reason--and Americans, it appears, have bought it hook, line and sinker.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No, go ahead, make too fine a point of it, 'cause you're right
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Upset on Dec 7, 2007 12:43 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are arguments on both sides. Don't they deserve to be listened to and judged?
I hate this tendency to rash judgement. Slow down -- calling an adversary stupid is not an argument it is a label.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Labels are not arguments
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Dec 7, 2007 1:49 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rayosun on Dec 7, 2007 2:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How anyone can recall Reagan and his administration "fondly" shows how completely our U.S. mainstream media are controlled - not by LIBERALS, but - by the friends and allies of the rich and the powerful, i.e. CONSERVATIVES.
See http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 7, 2007 2:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: sofla100...
Posted by: channing
» RE: sofla100...
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: sofla100...
Posted by: channing
» RE: Free Trade, North American Union and "Dumbing Down" of Americans
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Free Trade, North American Union and "Dumbing Down" of Americans
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VeryBlessed on Dec 7, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There's a lot of truth in conservatism
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 7, 2007 8:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/2760.htm
Now, much has been said about this NAFTA Superhighway. It had been theorized this would be a new, separately built corridor to move Chinese and foreign made goods from non-unionized Mexican ports to Kansas City for North American distribution and on to Canada for distribution there. However, it appears much more likely the NAFTA Superhighway will just use the existing interstate system and toll/turnpike roads (often administered now by foreign companies), perhaps with some upgrades. Why is this significant? It is the beginning of the erasure of the lines between the USA, Canada and Mexico. In the future, trade and other disputes will be put to a NAFTA committee for binding resolution. The USA, Canada, and Mexico will have no say in this, as the NAFTA committee will make the final, binding decision. See where this is leading? Americas aristocracy, which values commerce and money more than anything else, would love to see erasure of national boundaries in order to gut the worker and environmental protections Americans have. Outsourcing finally moves then to the internal operation of the USA, an "internally outsourced" USA. A cancer driven within America. They have also "dumbed down" the average American to accept this "free trade" crap. But what he or she has coming with this is the (yet to come) sweatshops and shanty towns of a new America. What Mexico and India are today.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Dec 7, 2007 9:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are necessary actions in any sane society - but not this one - it's like a bunch of adolescents at the "Frat" (not White) House...thinking that gross economic inequality and no taxation will solve every ill of society. And deficits - no problem! If we ran our private lives like this, we'd be filing for bankruptcy left and right. Well as you can see by the induced housing "crisis", this is all falling down as a house of cards always does.
Maybe, since unfortunately, popular culture is dominant, we need slogans like "Affordable Housing - That's Hot"....since nothing sensible gets any attention these days...it's just Paris Hilton, iPods and mindless consumerism while plutocrats pick the working man's pockets. Yes Virginia, we need taxes to pay for all of the wonders of America that everyone enjoys - libraries, roads, and so much more, and if you don't believe it, just get out there and drive and hope you don't end up on a crumbling bridge someday.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: Joe
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zorro on Dec 7, 2007 11:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Dec 8, 2007 2:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marid on Dec 8, 2007 7:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best Democracy money can Buy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Brain dead American public
Posted by: UndergroundPirate
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mark Spangler on Dec 8, 2007 8:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too much of our "American Dream" thought process is the notion that in America you can become anything that you want to. This is not, nor has it ever been true. There are scads of strikes against people... economic impairments, race, educational disadvantages, etc. But the conservative view is that this is the fault of the individual, and poster boys for the lazy, shiftless lower class abound. The reason that working people buy into this is because they've never learned to think as a group, but rather, continue to think as cannibalistic individuals. The divide and conquer strategy is alive and well and this is a major stepping stone to conservative success.
It is maddening to try to explain this to my blue collar friends and relatives without sounding haughty and condescending. Even more so since invented problems like "immigration" and "social security crisis" seem to way heavily on their brow.
I've used a fool proof policy to determine what is true and what is not. I simply ask myself "who is concerned about this and where have I heard it?" Is a conservative boosting it? Then it probably is a threat to my livelihood. Do I hear it on Fox News? Probably a lie. Then, I do the digging. It hasn't failed me yet.
The key to fighting this conservative scourge is to not fall prey to its enticements. You can't be one of them and fight them. You have to be above the fray. You ARE NOT going to be as successful living your life this way. You ARE NOT going to get rich, and our society rewards those with the dough. This is why even lightweight conservatives like Pat Sajak can sneak in Rosie O'Donnell digs on his game show and not be called on it, while a truly vile human like Donald Trump gets the kudos.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Use This Test...
Posted by: macdon1
» RE: Use This Test...
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Dec 9, 2007 7:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tim Brown on Dec 9, 2007 1:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite reaction to the contrary, Cenk's point about manipulation is quite valid. Our citizens have been trained to believe things based on the flimsiest of "facts" culled together in slick sound bites by public relations professionals whose job is to manipulate public opinion.
It's time that progressives started fighting fire with fire and emulated the PR efforts of the corporate elite.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cenk is on Target With His Commentary...
Posted by: irenicus
» Phony PR...nope
Posted by: Tim Brown
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Dec 9, 2007 3:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: riotoustanpdx on Dec 9, 2007 6:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, there is no "Culture War," or "cultures wars" that necessitate this being an issue. The Culture Wars myth is a Device used to "divide and conquer" the beliefs of all of us in the Democratic Republic, as opposed the "capitalistic society." that power-wielders want to displace the republic with.
Second, we have been dependent economically on foreign labor for decades, especially the Mexican workers who come here both legally and otherwise.
Thirdly, the people of the (31) United States of the Republic of Mexico have a great deal in common with the people of the (48) United States of America. So much so, that we share a common history in two languages (not counting, of course, the indigenous languages of the vanquished peoples). An exceedingly integrated and common host of experiences that unite us one people divided by military events and an arbitrary path of a river called the Rio Grande.
Strip those of us in the north of our racism, and parochial attitudes about language, inject us with the ability to face the truth, and we would see the innumerable benefits of uniting two republics into one great democratic republic.
The result: a longer, defensible coastline; an integrated workforce that is more equitable for all; a smaller southern border that is easily managed; abundant natural resources that are both more meaningful and accessible through the technologies that we share; economic prosperity that results in the emergence of a growing middle class rising from presently underemployed minions. "More meaningful resources" are defined as the abundant areas of Mexico that naturally are suited to capture Solar energy; convertible to ecologically sound "farms" of solar energy that potentially can supply all of the energy needs of the northern 48 states, and the labor force that is waiting for the opportunity to build the new infrastructure of the Solar Age in energy.
We will, if we become smart enough to invest in high-speed rail lines to connect our cities, need hundreds of thousands of laborers able to build that new infrastructure, to install solar energy hardware on millions of homes and businesses across the landscape of both "republics," and much more.
So what is all the griping about borders and illegal immigration? We simply have to take the truth serum and wake up to the realities and challenges that we have in common.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johndoraemi on Dec 9, 2007 6:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many, many obvious crimes go unpunished, countenanced by both political parties. Just today we learned how Pelosi knew about CIA torture since 2002, and agreed to play ball.
This abomination of a government is not a democracy, and never has been. It has always represented the aristocracy first, with appeasement of the rabble a secondary consideration.
Some fundamental changes are needed to take back a lot of that power from the federal bohemoth, and to restore it to the people. Jefferson had something poignant to say about that in the Declaration of Independence. The part about the "long train of abuses and usurpations..." (I expect them to stop teaching this one in public schools in the not too distant future.)
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anonymous black writer on Dec 10, 2007 11:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




