World Politics

[Amsterhammer]

Hmmm. Maybe gregod can come up with something a little more reasoned

That was reasoned! I wanted to spare you all the rant version.

 

[Moondance]

She is (or was, before these latest 'thoughts' from her,) a 100% certified reactionary idiot who, in any other country, would not even be elected as dogcatcher.

Because Geert Wilders is a progressive, 100% certified rational thinker?

 

[ChrisE]

Because Geert Wilders is a progressive, 100% certified rational thinker?

Hampsterslammer was just having a absolutism attack. Be easy on him.

 

[redtreviso]

""But the reality is, the brains of investment bankers by nature are not wired for "client-based" thinking. This is the reason why the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept investment banks and commercial banks separate, was originally passed back in 1933: it just defies common sense to have professional gamblers in charge of stewarding commercial bank accounts.""

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-2-billion-ubs-incident-rogue-trader-my-***-20110915

 

[gregod]

...
What have you got against Sarah Palin anyway?

thanks for the explanation.

what have i got against her? mainly i dislike that she represents and embraces anti-intellectualism. however, i think her popularity is more of a poor reflection on americans. i give her credit, she is able to inspire people. i just wish she would inspire people to think; not just repeat slogans and talking points that only fit a narrow inchoate ideology. there is no ideology that can solve all or perhaps even most problems that any country faces.

as an aside; i don't think she would be a worse president than the current occupant of the white house. the current political atmosphere and inherent corruption of the system (among other reasons) make the job simultaneously impossible and the person who attempts it, irrelevent.

that said, i would prefer that she does not become president for two reasons. first, as a long time expat i have seen first hand how much bush damaged the credibility of the office of the president to the world outside of the US with his numerous gaffes. second, even though intelligence is no guarantee of being an good president, it is my personal prejudice that i would like the people i vote for to be intellectually gifted and not just charismatic.

 

[Stingray34]

Where can I get some 'life for the human organism is simple and straightfoward' glasses, the ones some posters seem to wear all day in the sun?

It'll be a shame to no longer perceive nuance anymore, to never again be assailed by doubt, that creator of intruige and empathy.

I'll never have to examine my own life anymore, to look into myself for my own biases, prejudices and conceits.

Worst of all, I can never become wise.

 

[Amsterhammer]

thanks for the explanation.

what have i got against her? mainly i dislike that she represents and embraces anti-intellectualism. however, i think her popularity is more of a poor reflection on americans. i give her credit, she is able to inspire people. i just wish she would inspire people to think; not just repeat slogans and talking points that only fit a narrow inchoate ideology. there is no ideology that can solve all or perhaps even most problems that any country faces.

as an aside; i don't think she would be a worse president than the current occupant of the white house. the current political atmosphere and inherent corruption of the system (among other reasons) make the job simultaneously impossible and the person who attempts it, irrelevent.

that said, i would prefer that she does not become president for two reasons. first, as a long time expat i have seen first hand how much bush damaged the credibility of the office of the president to the world outside of the US with his numerous gaffes. second, even though intelligence is no guarantee of being an good president, it is my personal prejudice that i would like the people i vote for to be intellectually gifted and not just charismatic.

I particularly agree with the points I have made bold and I trust that this explanation is 'reasoned' enough for the cavman.

(As an aside, Gregod, can I ask why a clearly articulate and intelligent person such as yourself chooses to avoid capital letters where appropriate? I'm curious because I was brought up to be a language pedant.)

Because Geert Wilders is a progressive, 100% certified rational thinker?

Not that Wilders has anything to do with comments about Palin

Wilders is a very different political animal than Palin, imho. The main difference is that he is intelligent, and a very clever manipulator of those lowest common denominator gut feelings that Palin also tries to appeal to. Wilders is as far from 'progressive' as you can get, nor are his thoughts 'rational' in my book. I consider him far more dangerous and insidious than Palin and yes, it annoys the hell out of me that he occupies a position of power and influence in Dutch politics that he has attained by harping on his anti-muslim and anti-immigrant scare tactics.

Hampsterslammer was just having a absolutism attack. Be easy on him.

I appreciate your concern.

 

[gregod]

...

(As an aside, Gregod, can I ask why a clearly articulate and intelligent person such as yourself chooses to avoid capital letters where appropriate? I'm curious because I was brought up to be a language pedant.)

...

cheers.

two reasons: 1) i'm lazy. 2) i speak and write in other languages that do not use anything similar to capital letters. so, except for some proper names, they don't really serve any purpose, IMO.

 

[Amsterhammer]

cheers.

two reasons: 1) i'm lazy. 2) i speak and write in other languages that do not use anything similar to capital letters. so, except for some proper names, they don't really serve any purpose, IMO.

There are languages that do not use capitals at all? I also speak and write Dutch, and as a pedant who grew up with English and German, I have to tell you that the Dutch habit of omitting most capitals has always annoyed me intensely - though even the Dutch start sentences with caps.

 

[Moondance]

Not that Wilders has anything to do with comments about Palin

Wilders is a very different political animal than Palin, imho. The main difference is that he is intelligent, and a very clever manipulator of those lowest common denominator gut feelings that Palin also tries to appeal to. Wilders is as far from 'progressive' as you can get, nor are his thoughts 'rational' in my book. I consider him far more dangerous and insidious than Palin and yes, it annoys the hell out of me that he occupies a position of power and influence in Dutch politics that he has attained by harping on his anti-muslim and anti-immigrant scare tactics.

I completely agree with your analysis, but my comment was more directed at the idea that 'only-in-America' would people think to elect an anti-intellectual populist like Sarah Palin. Comparable, in the sense of message and style, politicians have been elected throughout most democracies, in Europe too, to this very day.

The idea that other countries would never dream of electing a Palin-type person shows a certain naivete which is quite frankly, a little dangerous in any political system.

 

[rhubroma]

Why would I go and tell somebody in poverty with 5 kids and more on the way they are stupid? That is obvious. The cat is out of the bag. Wouldn't you rather put your energy towards a poor kid in jr. high or high school and tell them they would be stupid to make those choices until they are financially and emotionally stable? As you and rhubarb are arguing councelling like that is worthless unless there is some type of redistribution of wealth.

And, why are they uneducated? Public schools are open to all, and you get out of school what you put into it. There are assistance programs available for further education if one chooses to go down that path. And, colleges today offer choices for working students such as weekend classes, and accelerated courses taken in the evenings.

In summary, there are avenues to get out of poverty if one CHOOSES or has the mental capacities to do so, and that is where some people struggle with entitlement programs (discounting the present economic conditions, this is an issue that has happened regardless of that). That would not be me, BTW. These posts are about personal responsibility, not what society should do about those who are just unable or thru their choices choose not to succeed. There will be people in society that make bad choices or are just as I say "stupid", and those will require safety nets or else you will have people dying on the street and crime thru the roof. I realilze that. I would hope that eventually even the most idiotic teabagger would eventually figure this out, but I have my doubts.

Regardless, whatever is going on in somebody's life there is a choice to make when it comes to getting pregnant. And, if you are struggling to come out of poverty then the last thing you want to CHOOSE to do is get pregnant, especially in a broken down family structure. Society is not forcing them to have more children and thus furthering their life into one of poverty, as well as their children. It makes the problem worse, for them and society.

The problem with the fringe left in this country is they don't want to look at the real problems and address reality of what people choose to do, and work to change the mindset causing the issue. You and rhubarb want to rattle on about pregnancy "victims" to further socialistic government, as if that would be some type of eradicator of poor choices of the stupid. I don't fall in your camp. Sorry.

That's right, don't look at the man behind the curtain! The public schools are working terrifically. You did get one thing right, however, you get what you put into it.

The fact is that the poor and poorly educated are more prolific in reproduction, whereas those with university degrees and decent jobs tend to make less babies. What don't you see or get here?

Now I've never said that I have the solution, but I do think I know what the problem is.

In any case perhaps you would not object to rounding up all the "idiots" and do what is about to be done in Rwanda: the forced sterilization of 700,000 males.

So instead of working towards human change, which involves a redistribution of wealth and opportunities, we are inevitably forced to fall back on the old methods, be they war, or hording of resources like food and water, or fascist political measures (like that about to be imposed in Rwanda).

PS: I had to add comment about what I said about what you said, in regards to the last point you made, which, naturally, only demonstrated that you haven't understood anything I said, I thought, after having carefully considered your last point as I have already mentioned. For, in fact, I have precisely looked at the issue from the human behavior perspective that you were talking about. It's just that what you view as being due to a lack of human intelligence, I rather perceive as the result of a status of being that lends itself to making the poor choices we both can agree upon were made.

I also find your comments about choosing not to be poor, as if one can decide their economic state like which flavor of gelato they will have, to be either the fruit of an appalling cynicism, or else totally ingenuous. We all know that there have been certain social groups, which have had infinitely more difficulty in achieving a high standard and becoming upwardly mobile; and this has been the result of an affluent class and economic system that has always found the necessary pressure to bear in keeping them in their lowly place. Having said that, I'm not at all for the type spurious welfare like section 8 and the likes, because such types of assistance only attempt to deal with the problem geographically, in a manner of speaking, rather than work to change the business causes that have perpetuated it for so long. The truth is that there is a certain class that wants to keep them in their abject and primitive state. Until a question that begs to be answered remains without an explanation, the old measures I mentioned above will be the only ones to fall back on. And that question is this:

Why do many who have made themselves rich on the backs of the poor countries (or social segments, whichever you prefer), then refuse to extend a hand to those who take flight from the misery and come to us asking to share the wealth that was generated by their very poverty?

 

[Anonymous]

She is (or was, before these latest 'thoughts' from her,) a 100% certified reactionary idiot who, in any other country, would not even be elected as dogcatcher.

Hmmm. Maybe gregod can come up with something a little more reasoned

No, Amster pretty much hit it on the head on the first shot. No further explanation needed.

 

[Anonymous]

thanks for the explanation.

what have i got against her? mainly i dislike that she represents and embraces anti-intellectualism. however, i think her popularity is more of a poor reflection on americans. i give her credit, she is able to inspire people. i just wish she would inspire people to think; not just repeat slogans and talking points that only fit a narrow inchoate ideology. there is no ideology that can solve all or perhaps even most problems that any country faces.

as an aside; i don't think she would be a worse president than the current occupant of the white house. the current political atmosphere and inherent corruption of the system (among other reasons) make the job simultaneously impossible and the person who attempts it, irrelevent.

that said, i would prefer that she does not become president for two reasons. first, as a long time expat i have seen first hand how much bush damaged the credibility of the office of the president to the world outside of the US with his numerous gaffes. second, even though intelligence is no guarantee of being an good president, it is my personal prejudice that i would like the people i vote for to be intellectually gifted and not just charismatic.

But this is pretty good explanation too.

 

[fatandfast]

I completely agree with your analysis, but my comment was more directed at the idea that 'only-in-America' would people think to elect an anti-intellectual populist like Sarah Palin. Comparable, in the sense of message and style, politicians have been elected throughout most democracies, in Europe too, to this very day.

The idea that other countries would never dream of electing a Palin-type person shows a certain naivete which is quite frankly, a little dangerous in any political system.

great point. Also seeing recent statements out of Holland, France and Germany people are confused about lots of things but Nationalism being a major component of the confusion.
In Holland as in the US there appears to be an undercurrent about what makes you Dutch or American. Most of the discussion starts with religion and skin color as obvious disqualifications.
Palin plays into an ugly part of Americana that excludes everybody of color.
Her simple life solutions may work in Alaska but in the rest of the US her views are part on a long lost Aryan utopia that never was, Geert Wilders is more direct but Palin is playing to an ugly bunch in the US. I hope people like Le Pen and others fade away

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I sent that Palin article to a friend who recently completed his masters thesis on the growing plutocracy and fusion of money and connections in politics in our country. He would like to see the entire speech she gave, if anyone knows where it can be found, as he believes she is at least partly paraphrasing someone from history, but he can't put his finger on it. It's someone like Teddy R, James Madison, Monroe, Paine, de Tocqueville, etc.

Puts things in a little different perspective, and now makes me wonder what the entire context was she was saying this.

 

[rhubroma]

great point. Also seeing recent statements out of Holland, France and Germany people are confused about lots of things but Nationalism being a major component of the confusion.
In Holland as in the US there appears to be an undercurrent about what makes you Dutch or American. Most of the discussion starts with religion and skin color as obvious disqualifications.
Palin plays into an ugly part of Americana that excludes everybody of color.
Her simple life solutions may work in Alaska but in the rest of the US her views are part on a long lost Aryan utopia that never was, Geert Wilders is more direct but Palin is playing to an ugly bunch in the US. I hope people like Le Pen and others fade away

Just don't discount the effects of neo-libralism in the post-revolutionary phase of democracy, in breeding the type of populist aberration under which most of the Western states have succumbed.

It is the catering to the theory of "lowest common denominator," under the aegis of materialism, the markets have bred that has led to the pitiful political class and paltry democratic culture, in which we now find ourselves completely immersed. It's like wading through the muck.

With every pass the filth becomes deeper, first you are knee deep in it, then it is up to your waste, after which you feel it caressing your throat, until it is finally at the threshold of your very breathing apparatus and so you can't support the reek; and then the effluvium is so unbearable that you feel the nausea creeping up from within, until you positively and irrevocably collapse under its foul and malodorous stench. Like Berlusconi.

 

[redtreviso]

I sent that Palin article to a friend who recently completed his masters thesis on the growing plutocracy and fusion of money and connections in politics in our country. He would like to see the entire speech she gave, if anyone knows where it can be found, as he believes she is at least partly paraphrasing someone from history, but he can't put his finger on it. It's someone like Teddy R, James Madison, Monroe, Paine, de Tocqueville, etc.

Puts things in a little different perspective, and now makes me wonder what the entire context was she was saying this.

or just more word salad, meaning as little as anything she ever says..
note how the "liberal media" is not covering this...

 

[patricknd]

Just don't discount the effects of neo-libralism in the post-revolutionary phase of democracy, in breeding the type of populist aberration under which most of the Western states have succumbed.

It is the catering to the theory of "lowest common denominator," under the aegis of materialism, the markets have bred that has led to the pitiful political class and paltry democratic culture, in which we now find ourselves completely immersed. It's like wading through the muck.

With every pass the filth becomes deeper, first you are knee deep in it, then it is up to your waste, after which you feel it caressing your throat, until it is finally at the threshold of your very breathing apparatus and so you can't support the reek; and then the effluvium is so unbearable that you feel the nausea creeping up from within, until you positively and irrevocably collapse under its foul and malodorous stench. Like Berlusconi.

or you can just say the ****'s gettin deep.

 

[Amsterhammer]

With every pass the filth becomes deeper, first you are knee deep in it, then it is up to your waste, after which you feel it caressing your throat, until it is finally at the threshold of your very breathing apparatus and so you can't support the reek; and then the effluvium is so unbearable that you feel the nausea creeping up from within, until you positively and irrevocably collapse under its foul and malodorous stench. Like Berlusconi.

Nice climax. I can sense how much you enjoyed writing that paragraph.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

thanks for the explanation.

what have i got against her? mainly i dislike that she represents and embraces anti-intellectualism. however, i think her popularity is more of a poor reflection on americans. i give her credit, she is able to inspire people. i just wish she would inspire people to think; not just repeat slogans and talking points that only fit a narrow inchoate ideology. there is no ideology that can solve all or perhaps even most problems that any country faces.

as an aside; i don't think she would be a worse president than the current occupant of the white house. the current political atmosphere and inherent corruption of the system (among other reasons) make the job simultaneously impossible and the person who attempts it, irrelevent.

that said, i would prefer that she does not become president for two reasons. first, as a long time expat i have seen first hand how much bush damaged the credibility of the office of the president to the world outside of the US with his numerous gaffes. second, even though intelligence is no guarantee of being an good president, it is my personal prejudice that i would like the people i vote for to be intellectually gifted and not just charismatic.

O.K.

Nothing to disagree with there. But it's not a lot to inspire such vitriol. She really gets the backs up of the left, here in the UK too. It's hard to see why. It's not as if the rest of the political class of either country is anything to be proud of.

History is littered with successful leaders who connected with their electorate on a very straightforward level using language and examples that the man in the street 'gets'. Palin does this too. Currently the ruling elite across the world are operating on a principle of, "You're too stupid to understand, trust us it will be OK."

How often will the electorate watch their rulers' efforts have absolutely the opposite consequence to that which was promised before they turn to someone who appears to represent what they feel.

 

[ChrisE]

That's right, don't look at the man behind the curtain! The public schools are working terrifically. You did get one thing right, however, you get what you put into it.

The fact is that the poor and poorly educated are more prolific in reproduction, whereas those with university degrees and decent jobs tend to make less babies. What don't you see or get here?

Now I've never said that I have the solution, but I do think I know what the problem is.

In any case perhaps you would not object to rounding up all the "idiots" and do what is about to be done in Rwanda: the forced sterilization of 700,000 males.

So instead of working towards human change, which involves a redistribution of wealth and opportunities, we are inevitably forced to fall back on the old methods, be they war, or hording of resources like food and water, or fascist political measures (like that about to be imposed in Rwanda).

PS: I had to add comment about what I said about what you said, in regards to the last point you made, which, naturally, only demonstrated that you haven't understood anything I said, I thought, after having carefully considered your last point as I have already mentioned. For, in fact, I have precisely looked at the issue from the human behavior perspective that you were talking about. It's just that what you view as being due to a lack of human intelligence, I rather perceive as the result of a status of being that lends itself to making the poor choices we both can agree upon were made.

I also find your comments about choosing not to be poor, as if one can decide their economic state like which flavor of gelato they will have, to be either the fruit of an appalling cynicism, or else totally ingenuous. We all know that there have been certain social groups, which have had infinitely more difficulty in achieving a high standard and becoming upwardly mobile; and this has been the result of an affluent class and economic system that has always found the necessary pressure to bear in keeping them in their lowly place. Having said that, I'm not at all for the type spurious welfare like section 8 and the likes, because such types of assistance only attempt to deal with the problem geographically, in a manner of speaking, rather than work to change the business causes that have perpetuated it for so long. The truth is that there is a certain class that wants to keep them in their abject and primitive state. Until a question that begs to be answered remains without an explanation, the old measures I mentioned above will be the only ones to fall back on. And that question is this:

Why do many who have made themselves rich on the backs of the poor countries (or social segments, whichever you prefer), then refuse to extend a hand to those who take flight from the misery and come to us asking to share the wealth that was generated by their very poverty?

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

 

[Anonymous]

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

You know Chris, you are phucking phunny sometimes...and this is one of those times.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Note how the "liberal media" is not covering this...

I thought the NY Times was "liberal media?"

How often will the electorate watch their rulers' efforts have absolutely the opposite consequence to that which was promised before they turn to someone who appears to represent what they feel.

Andrew Bacivich has commented on this. That each election we put someone new in (not just President, Congress, Governors, etc) who has said some good ideas,from both parties, across the nation. But the system is so broken that once they get in there, it's a huge let-down; the actions they take are frequently the opposite in results to what they promised. They then spend the last several months of their term leading into the next election (when not raising money) trying to redefine, or spin the results to make it look like they did accomplish some of what they wanted, and it would have worked had it not been for their opponents getting in the way.

 

[gregod]

O.K.

Nothing to disagree with there. But it's not a lot to inspire such vitriol. She really gets the backs up of the left, here in the UK too. It's hard to see why. It's not as if the rest of the political class of either country is anything to be proud of.

History is littered with successful leaders who connected with their electorate on a very straightforward level using language and examples that the man in the street 'gets'. Palin does this too. Currently the ruling elite across the world are operating on a principle of, "You're too stupid to understand, trust us it will be OK."

How often will the electorate watch their rulers' efforts have absolutely the opposite consequence to that which was promised before they turn to someone who appears to represent what they feel.

while vitriol toward anyone is difficult to understand, it might be instructive to look at another leader who also caused heads to explode: bill clinton. he connected with people similarly to sarah palin and he was a small state governor-an outsider.

they have two things in common. first, they both employ "dog whistles". this kind of speech resonates with the those who are predisposed towards it and enflames those who are not. second, she and clinton are/were both loathed by the leaders of the opposite parties and not particularly liked or trusted by the old guard within their parties because of their populist appeal.

 

[redtreviso]

while vitriol toward anyone is difficult to understand, it might be instructive to look at another leader who also caused heads to explode: bill clinton. he connected with people similarly to sarah palin and he was a small state governor-an outsider.

they have two things in common. first, they both employ "dog whistles". this kind of speech resonates with the those who are predisposed towards it and enflames those who are not. second, she and clinton are/were both loathed by the leaders of the opposite parties and not particularly liked or trusted by the old guard within their parties because of their populist appeal.

That is a real stretch. Palin almost holds Ku Klux Klan rallies..There's no way Bill Clinton is just the opposing version of this..This is why people who ought to know better say "might as well vote republican because everyone else round har duz"