Originally Posted by Odin

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's another article reflecting the corporate control of the mainstream media and effective, if non-governmental, censorship.

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2011/04...american-know/



When I and other Boomers came of age, things were quite different. The press took its role as national watchdog seriously. While it was far from infallible, it could be trusted as to motives, and would cover genuinely newsworthy events fairly. No one who read the newspapers or watched television could believe that there was no major protest activity against the Vietnam War. If the press as it exists today had been in existence then, only the biggest protests would have been covered at all, and any violence that occurred at them would have been emphasized over anything else. The people who relied on the media would have been left with the impression that only a few crazies opposed the war, and most Americans were solidly behind President Johnson (who would probably have won a second term in 1968 as a result). Those who opposed the war would have become dispirited, thinking they were part of a tiny minority that had no chance to prevail.

Today, as the above article observes, even the tiniest protest anywhere by the Tea Party over anything gets a big megaphone, creating the impression of something huge and powerful. At the same time, anything from the left short of occupying a state capital gets little or no coverage, creating the impression of something nonexistent or impotent. It's an illusion.

There has been a protest by environmental groups at the White House for quite some time now, with participants in the tens of thousands, a meeting with President Obama, arrests, and so on. How many of you have heard of it? If you get your main news by searching on line, probably you have -- we don't have true government-imposed censorship in this country and the truth is still out there. But if you get your main news from CNN, MSNBC, network TV, the major newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times), or even NPR, then it's likely you haven't, and certain that it hasn't been prominently brought to your attention.

We have protests happening in every city over jobs, demanding that the government adopt policies to put people back to work. Same observation -- I'll bet many of you didn't even know that.

The major news outlets, except NPR, are all owned and controlled by a corporate industry with a political agenda of its own: to maximize corporate profits and prevent any government action that would spread the wealth. NPR is of course not corporate-owned, and yet it is dependent on contributions in part from corporations and in part from the government, and both those sources are dependent on NPR also not crossing a certain line in its coverage. These outlets are not the only source of news, but they are the loudest and most prominent, and the only ones that many people ever hear from.

It's hard for Boomers in particular to get our minds around this fact. But it is a fact. The free press we knew in our younger days is gone. Or rather, it's not gone, but it gets lost in the storm of disinformation that is put out by the major news media.

This is why many people my age don't bother protesting, the Corporate Media is just going to ignore it.

Yes, and the disconnect Boomers have is that technically, they are the ones either controlling or managing the media they mourn being less trustworthy than when their elders ran it. The younger generations, who don't have such a sentimental attachment, focus on their immediate communities, Internet sources or their own sense of judgment for understanding reality. We look upon this ceremonious mourning the way one would the mourning of the radio.

Originally Posted by MxDx

what solution is there to "restoring sanity" so to speak?

It depends on what you mean by sanity.

i guess the whole moving beyond culture wars into some sort of cohesive working country? how to do away with the out of touch superstition of the religious extremism that's at the heart of the country's right wing? i'm not begrudging anybody's beliefs, but that's the side of things that completely freaks me out.

Originally Posted by James50

I am not a regular watcher of MSNBC night time lineup, but are you saying that people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz are being muzzled by their corporate masters? Its hard for me to imagine that.

That's a good question, actually. They're not muzzled in their expression of opinions, but perhaps they are in their coverage of the news. Rachel doing Rachel-talk is evidence only that people exist who hold liberal views, which is universally acknowledged.

I haven't watched Rachel Maddow in a while and I have never watched Ed Schulz. I'll look into this and see what kind of coverage I see on their shows of the leftist insurgency. A commentary from the moderate left on the accepted reality (without trying to correct the impression of what IS) fits the agenda, particularly at MSNBC, which plays the role of the "left leaning" news outlet. In any case, I know that the Maddow Show doesn't have a large force of reporters and journalists at its disposal. She does have a staff, but that staff is mostly engaged in fact-checking politicians, getting people on air on her show, and the like. So for basic news she's dependent on the regular paid journalists at MSNBC.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes, and the disconnect Boomers have is that technically, they are the ones either controlling or managing the media they mourn being less trustworthy than when their elders ran it.

I don't run any media outlets at all.

There are more than one of us, you know.

EDIT: Actually come to think of it I do run my own blog and my Facebook page. I guess those could qualify as "media outlets." I'm still not what you'd call a big media mogul, though.

Originally Posted by James50

I am not a regular watcher of MSNBC night time lineup, but are you saying that people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz are being muzzled by their corporate masters? Its hard for me to imagine that.

James50

MSNBC promotes polarization that keeps left-wingers like me and moderate conservatives like you from realizing that we are both on the same side against the Corporate Elites and the Religious Right nutcases.

It is telling that Cenk Uygur was canned from MSNBC because he was "being to critical of the administration", that is, he was not towing the establishment line. the Liberal pundits on MSNBC are allowed to bash Republicans, but they are not allowed to bash RW Corporatist policies by people in the Democratic party, especially President Obama.

Originally Posted by MxDx

i guess the whole moving beyond culture wars into some sort of cohesive working country? how to do away with the out of touch superstition of the religious extremism that's at the heart of the country's right wing? i'm not begrudging anybody's beliefs, but that's the side of things that completely freaks me out.

The big thing is getting moderate conservatives (like James and 92man) to realize that they are much closer in their beliefs to us on the left than they are to the Corporate Elite or the Religious Right.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I swear to god you Boomers won't rest until this country is embroiled in a civil war and the rest of the world takes the opportunity to begin WWIII. I give...

You can scapegoat "Boomers" or you can blame the Republicans (who are allowed to be confrontational) or the Democrats (who are not). The situation we face is due to people holding false ideologies, mostly Republican ones. These ideologies were not all foisted upon us by Boomers; Reagan for example was GI gen.

brower
Fascism isn't quite the same thing in all countries. The Japanese had no use for Wagnerian bombast; the Italians didn't quite get the samurai fantasy; the Germans didn't so much imitate Roman ways so much as they parodied them. American fascists have little use for anything so exotic. They would be 100% American -- the would have iconic images of George Washington, and not Frederick the Great or Scipio Africanus. They would assert the 'glory' of twangy country music over Mozart. As a rule, fascist 'culture' is dumbed-down and bowdlerized... with a heavy dose of superstition. Until I see otherwise I remain convinced that there is a fascism especially suited to the cultural heritage of a country. The Tea Party Cult shows much of what a fascist America could look like. I do not yet count it out. It can twist the paraphernalia of the Revolution that categorically rejected every trace of tyranny that it could reject into an ideology that shows contempt for the liberal ideas that the American Revolution made possible.

I agree with this assessment.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, thank you--now we are getting somewhere.

I certainly agree that Bachmann, Perry and Palin represent an unprecedented danger to this country, particularly because of their anti-intellectualism, which amounts to anti-rationality. But that's a completely different thing than Fascism or National Socialism, which prided themselves on being scientific (even if some of the science was pseudo-science). But let me return to my main point: Fascism and Nazism (especially the latter) were based on discipline and order. No political movement in America today is interested in either one. The Tea Party wants to return to the law of the jungle, which is why they remind me so much of the Gilded.

In the late 1960s Fascism became a generic term for "anything I don't like." I think it's better to call things by their right names.

Continuing with the question of the fate of Progressive and New Deal reforms--the FDIC is still in place, thank heaven. But most of them are dead letters, as is the idea that the government has a responsibility to provide public power. Another Great Society reform that has been weakened and is hanging by a thread is the EPA. (I know it passed under Nixon--although he didn't like it.) A great many liberals have mistakenly assumed that because these are good reforms, they must continue. Another critical myth, very popular in the MSM, is that any trend that is happening must be a good thing.

The fact that the Tea Party wants us to submit to corporate order and authority, and to fundamentalist Christian order and authority, and the fact that we put so many more people in jail than any other country, mostly for drugs or ethnic profiling, and that juries routinely put innocent people in jail, and guilty until proven innocent rules the day in the USA, all suggest that, if anything, in the conservative ranks there is quite a bit of interest in "discipline and order," as they understand it. Permission for corporations to do as they please in an economic law of the jungle, is respect for authority-- but corporate business authority and corporate conformist cultural norms as opposed to "socialist and unpatriotic, unAmerican" government, as they see it.

Calling things by their right name is good. As I said, fascism has become a generic term for repression on the right, not "anything I don't like."

Good reforms indeed must either continue, or be brought back, if America is to progress and advance. We have been in regression and decline for 30-plus years, due entirely to the adoption of Reaganomics. There is no law of history that such a mistake must continue forever, just because Reagan was more charming than Carter. There is no law of history that America or any other country or people must do the right thing; but that's life.

Originally Posted by James50

The employment situation is disastrous and not getting better. Obama, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi. McConnell need to get everyone together and agree on a plan. I am sick of speeches. We either need a dramatic increase in government or a dramatic decrease. The status quo isn't working.

James50

But there's no way to fix it until Nov.2012.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can scapegoat "Boomers" or you can blame the Republicans (who are allowed to be confrontational) or the Democrats (who are not). The situation we face is due to people holding false ideologies, mostly Republican ones. These ideologies were not all foisted upon us by Boomers; Reagan for example was GI gen.

Why are the Democrats not allowed to be confrontational? I mean its a given they'll get flak from the right. But that should be no reason to fight for what they believe in. I believe it was Brian Rush who said maybe part of the reason was in some leftist circles..being more aggressive would remind people of the Russian revolution where bolsheviks took over and thus be counterproductive. ( or something to that effect, if I misunderstood him I apologize).

I don't think I agree with that, it seems to me to be more of a mindset issue. Republicans want to win at all costs, and the leftist mindset is fairness before results. In order to compete more effectively with the right you have to change the leftist mindset.

Originally Posted by MxDx

i guess the whole moving beyond culture wars into some sort of cohesive working country? how to do away with the out of touch superstition of the religious extremism that's at the heart of the country's right wing? i'm not begrudging anybody's beliefs, but that's the side of things that completely freaks me out.

Then the solution is to stop demonizing them. If that means tuning them out, so be it...

Originally Posted by Odin

The big thing is getting moderate conservatives (like James and 92man) to realize that they are much closer in their beliefs to us on the left than they are to the Corporate Elite or the Religious Right.

Eric:

I agree with your point that the right these days is very much into discipline and order; it's an authoritarian movement for sure. Any libertarian elements are either holdovers from the original Tea Party as it emerged from Ron Paul supporters, or window-dressing; the bulk of the movement is not libertarian at all. I would also observe that a desire to cut regulations for corporations does not stem from libertarianism (in the Tea Party), it stems from greed, which sponsors the talking points pressed by the authorities the Tea Party types follow.

I would also agree that the Tea Party is potentially a fascist movement. It does not resemble Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany as they governed their respective nations, but it does strongly resemble the Fascist movement and the National Socialist Party before they gained power. Except for one thing. Those movements stood very much for the common man and promised many socialist policies designed to restore prosperity and jobs. Lacking that element, I don't see how the Tea Party can gain enough popular support to allow any leader to do what Mussolini or Hitler did. (Assuming such a leader would arise; so far there is no single figure comparable to those two.)

I found an interesting illustration of the way that Republicans use code-speak these days. It's a statement by Ray Sullivan, who is a Rick Perry spokesperson, in response to an ad by the Bachmann campaign attacking Perry's right-wing bona fides.

Originally Posted by Ray Sullivan

Gov. Perry is a proven fiscal conservative, having cut taxes, signed six balanced budgets, and led Texas to become America's top job-creating state

The code phrase here is "fiscal conservative." Three clauses follow the statement that Perry is a "proven fiscal conservative," each intended as a supporting clause, but only one of them actually supports the claim that Perry is a fiscal conservative even if it's true. Signing "six balanced budgets" does support the idea that Perry is a fiscal conservative, but cutting taxes and creating jobs does not. Cutting taxes, all else being equal, is a sign that the person doing the cutting is NOT a fiscal conservative, and job-creation is irrelevant.

What the right means by the phrase "fiscal conservative" is not fiscal conservative but something else. It's basically a catch-all, it seems to me, for a bundle of economic ideas having no real connection to one another except that all of them promote the profits and power of big corporations.

Not necessarily a bad idea. Simplify the tax code. Question, does he propose keeping the standard deduction and personal exemptions? In most cases at the bottom, it would mean higher taxes, people who would otherwise expect thousands in refunds due to the EITC and child tax credit (despite not paying a dime in federal taxes).

I doubt anything like what he proposes would ever come into law. If Congress is ever good at anything, its making the current laws more complex.

Originally Posted by James50

John Huntsman has produced an economic plan. Some of you left wingers fire away:



This plan really outlines the battle ground and sounds better to me than the government of the last 2-1/2 years. It might even stimulate a Regeneracy. My only beef is that I don't think you repeal Obamacare without something to replace it.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

John Huntsman has produced an economic plan. Some of you left wingers fire away:



This plan really outlines the battle ground and sounds better to me than the government of the last 2-1/2 years. It might even stimulate a Regeneracy. My only beef is that I don't think you repeal Obamacare without something to replace it.

James50

Ok, here's my leftwing fire! Enjoy.

This "plan" is not different from those of the other right-wing fanatics. It is nonsense, pure and simple. We need to raise tax rates now, not lower them (ever hear of the deficit and debt??). Many of the personal deductions and credits left in the tax code (and many were scrapped in 1986) are necessary and wise. And do you really think the politicians won't add more, without raising tax rates? All the regulations and investments he proposes to do away with, are extremely vital and necessary, especially green energy and environmental protection agency. They are not "out of control;" that is outrageously ridiculous. If anything they are way too tame. I don't even think the EPA has come out with a greenhouse gas regulation yet, and the clock on climate change is ticking rapidly. The weather makes that crystal clear. And he says repeal the financial reform law because it encourages too big to fail. Fine, maybe he has a good point; but I don't see what his replacement is. None was mentioned in your summary. So, go back to the ways that got us into the mess we're in? At the very least Glass Steagall needs to be put back; who's going to do that? I guess Huntsman has no more memory than the Tea Party. Huntsman is a jerk; just a more polite one than Perry. At least with Perry you know what you're getting.

Originally Posted by MxDx

understood, please don't take me posting as passing judgement on Americans. i only become interested due to the closeness of our two countries geographically and economically and i'd hate to see yours fall into a new dark ages based over some ridiculous ideological turf war.

The ideologies are ridiculous, and the ridiculous ones are entirely on the right. Should those who have any sense, just buckle under and give in?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The ideologies are ridiculous, and the ridiculous ones are entirely on the right. Should those who have any sense, just buckle under and give in?

Eric,

Who did you support in the 2008 Democratic primary?

Originally Posted by MxDx

i guess the whole moving beyond culture wars into some sort of cohesive working country? how to do away with the out of touch superstition of the religious extremism that's at the heart of the country's right wing? i'm not begrudging anybody's beliefs, but that's the side of things that completely freaks me out.

I am certainly a bit freaked out myself, as an American.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Eric,

Who did you support in the 2008 Democratic primary?

I'm pretty sure he didn't support any of the Democrats. Otherwise he'd be "Eric the Democrat".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I swear to god you Boomers won't rest until this country is embroiled in a civil war and the rest of the world takes the opportunity to begin WWIII. I give...

You can scapegoat "Boomers" or you can blame the Republicans (who are allowed to be confrontational) or the Democrats (who are not). The situation we face is due to people holding false ideologies, mostly Republican ones. These ideologies were not all foisted upon us by Boomers; Reagan for example was GI gen.

The difference is by "Boomers" I include both Democrats and Republicans. And by Republicans, you mean an ideological war that you appear more interested in escalating than leaving; meanwhile the Millennials look on in fear as they contemplate fighting in this war they know nothing about. You may pass the culpability to GI's if you want to. But they are all dead. You sir, however, are very much alive...

Peace.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Eric,

Who did you support in the 2008 Democratic primary?

I was not allowed to vote in it in 2008; I am registered Green (uh, you can tell by my name). I was rooting for Hillary though; not because she was more liberal, but because I thought Obama could have run in 2016, when he was more experienced, and I'm less sure about that regarding Hillary. I may be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary in 2012; the rules have changed. In fact I may be allowed to vote in the Republican primary, where there is an actual race. The fact that independents at least will be able to vote in the 2012 primaries in CA suggests that Perry will not have an easy time getting the nomination, in spite of his current lead in the polls. There are fewer winner-take-all primaries too this year, and more independents voting in other states. And Romney is favored over him in the first two primaries and caucuses. I still think he is likely to win the nomination, and lose the general.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I'm pretty sure he didn't support any of the Democrats. Otherwise he'd be "Eric the Democrat".

Bingo ziggy.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

The difference is by "Boomers" I include both Democrats and Republicans. And by Republicans, you mean an ideological war that you appear more interested in escalating than leaving; meanwhile the Millennials look on in fear as they contemplate fighting in this war they know nothing about. You may pass the culpability to GI's if you want to. But they are all dead. You sir, however, are very much alive...

Peace.

It is fashionable to blame "boomers" for ideological wars, but they are being waged by all generations. I think Millies "know" quite a bit about these ideologies; how can they be avoided in America today? We can hope however that many Millennials don't have the stomach for the right-wing ideologies, and will just move on to sensible policies. As a boomer I would be relieved to just get on that bandwagon and move forward again. Until then, sensible people can't just sit back and let the right-wing take over the country.

Originally Posted by James50

John Huntsman has produced an economic plan. Some of you left wingers fire away:

This plan really outlines the battle ground and sounds better to me than the government of the last 2-1/2 years. It might even stimulate a Regeneracy. My only beef is that I don't think you repeal Obamacare without something to replace it.

James50

I can honestly say that this is bold, innovative and total nonsense. Just once, I would like someone to start at the other end and work back. Huntsman wants to kill several agencies because they don't work right (we can argue whether this is true at another time), but never addresses the intent of those agencies. In other words, do we need oversight of the envionmental, food and drugs, the banks, and large multinational corproations? Do we need to make healthcare possible for the non-elite? None of these are even mentioned. And let's not forget that the tax burden starts at 8%, and no deductions means it starts at the first dollar. Under this plan, the working poor are toast.

I remember when the Cuyahoga River burst into flames. Most of the other laissez faire tradegies happened before I was born. Are we actually considering a second try? After all, we killed Glass-Steagle, and got the crash of 2008. How does more of this make any sense?

Here's my immediate take on Huntsman's plan.

"The heart of the plan lowers all tax rates on individuals and businesses. Mr. Huntsman would create three personal income tax rates—8%, 14% and 23%—and pay for this in a "revenue-neutral" way by eliminating "all deductions and credits."

If this means what it says, literally eliminating "all deductions and credits," then it would amount to a tax cut for the wealthy and a tax increase for most people. Say right now you are a working-class person who makes $20,000 a year. Say you are single and use the standard deduction. The standard deduction plus one personal exemption for 2011 is $9,500, leaving a taxable amount of $10,500. The tax on this is $850 + $300 = $1,100. If all deductions and credits were eliminated but the bottom bracket dropped to 8%, then depending on where the line was drawn, this taxpayer would pay a minimum of $1,600, possibly more.

At the same time, consider someone who at this time has a taxable income of a million dollars. This person currently pays $284,854.50. Suppose that the bracket lines are at $8,500 and $100,000 for a single person. A million in taxable income would be taxed $220,490. In order for the loss of all deductions and credits (which, by the way, would NOT include business deductions, which happen up front and establish income from the business, not taxable income; there's no way those are going away and no way they should) to make up this shortfall, this millionaire would have to have taken $459,746.43 in deductions. I submit that isn't going to be a common occurrence.

So what this looks like to me is a proposal to shift the tax burden downward (again), relying on the fact that most American voters aren't all that math-savvy.