Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantZN,
Not a big deal, but that’s a WV quote, not a Billy_T quote.
On the university thing. What you say syncs up with my experience, too. I went to college in three different decades, and just never found it to be this supposed cesspool of leftist subversion we hear about from conservative pundits. To me, that’s just fever-dream nonsense, peddled by right-wing media to get their audiences wound up and outraged about the end of civilization as we know it.
The right-wing pundits who know better are playing a pretty smart game when they do this. Their hair’s on fire outrage about (non-existent) leftist indoctrination works the refs better than Coach K, and helps them get their message on campus when they can’t cut it on the merits. And they can’t. An Ann Coulter, for instance, has never written a single thing worth a student’s time, and every student has better things to do than to listen to her mindless bile. Life’s just too short for that inside or outside a university setting.
Anyway . . . another thing that interests me, historically, is the purging that’s been done to leftists in our history. Universities are now pretty much the last bastion for “the left,” but even there, they’ve been purged. While “conservatives” are constantly telling us how they’ve been victimized by “the left,” they’ve never experienced actual, systematic suppression, repression or oppression. The left has.
Despite all of their public pundit whingeing, America has always been a very friendly place to centrists and conservatives. Not so for “the left” historically.
Billy_TParticipant3. Universities are basically leftist indoctrination machines, and not to be trusted.
=====================
Well, I tend to agree with X that, in general, Probably, most University profs are “liberal” (Ie, Clinton-ish, Obama-ish, Democrat-ish)
Though, i dont have any science to back that up, and I’m open to proof pointing to something else.
At any rate, we know damn well that the liberal-professors, and the rightwing-talk-radio-pundits, and the liberal-MSM-reporters, and the liberal-librarians, and the rightwing-evangelicals, and the rightwing-nazis, and the alt-right-conservatives, and the various kinds of plumbers, IT-experts, carpenters, football players, hockey goalies, tree-surgeons, bakers, pharmacists, lawyers, pilots, rug-pee-ers, Dude-ranch-owners, trans-gender-green-berets, Police Officers, NASA custodians, Veterans, Veternarians, Buddhist Lesbian Dock Workers, and cat shampoo-ers….are almost all
voting for the Idiot-Duplicat-Party or the Idiot-Replicant-Party.The actual parties that would actually help this nation get 2 percent of the vote.
98 percent of the voters waste their votes on the two corporate-idiot-parties.
So…something is causing that. Something is causing 98 percent of the voters to vote for one of the two parties that will lie, cheat, steal and screw us all over.
Why the hell WOULDNT the Universities have a LOT to do with that? As well as the Idiot-rightwing media and the Idiot-liberal-media ?
Ok, i will shut up now. I shall rant no more.
w
vWV,
You have GOT to read this article, cuz it speaks exactly to what you’re saying. Well, except for the part about transgendered Green Berets and Buddhist Lesbian dock workers. It’s going to take me a bit more time to find the relevant essays on those topics.
Found it by way of the always excellent Los Angeles Rams Review of Books, via this equally fascinating article, Philosophy and the Gods of the City: Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft’s “Thinking in Public” By Jon Baskin
The Rise of the Thought Leader How the superrich have funded a new class of intellectual.
Seriously. This is right up your alley.
Today, Gramsci’s theory has been largely overlooked in the ongoing debate over the supposed decline of the “public intellectual” in America. Great minds, we are told, no longer captivate the public as they once did, because the university is too insular and academic thinking is too narrow. Such laments frequently cite Russell Jacoby’s The Last Intellectuals (1987), which complained about the post-1960s professionalization of academia and waxed nostalgic for the bohemian, “independent” intellectuals of the earlier twentieth century. Writers like the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof attribute this sorry state of affairs to the culture of Ph.D. programs, which, Kristof claims, have glorified “arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience.” If academics cannot bring their ideas to a wider readership, these familiar critiques imply, it is because of the academic mindset itself.
In his book The Ideas Industry, the political scientist and foreign policy blogger Daniel W. Drezner broadens the focus to include the conditions in which ideas are formed, funded, and expressed. Describing the public sphere in the language of markets, he argues that three major factors have altered the fortunes of today’s intellectuals: the evaporation of public trust in institutions, the polarization of American society, and growing economic inequality. He correctly identifies the last of these as the most important: the extraordinary rise of the American superrich, a class interested in supporting a particular genre of “ideas.”
The rich have, Drezner writes, empowered a new kind of thinker—the “thought leader”—at the expense of the much-fretted-over “public intellectual.” Whereas public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Martha Nussbaum are skeptical and analytical, thought leaders like Thomas Friedman and Sheryl Sandberg “develop their own singular lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” While public intellectuals traffic in complexity and criticism, thought leaders burst with the evangelist’s desire to “change the world.” Many readers, Drezner observes, prefer the “big ideas” of the latter to the complexity of the former. In a marketplace of ideas awash in plutocrat cash, it has become “increasingly profitable for thought leaders to hawk their wares to both billionaires and a broader public,” to become “superstars with their own brands, sharing a space previously reserved for moguls, celebrities, and athletes.”
Worth reading the whole thing — and the article that led to it.
Billy_TParticipantIt’s just a portrait on a wall. I don’t see how it’s “subtracting from Western Civilization” to replace it with one of Audre Lorde, who, after all, is also a contributor to “Western Civilization.”
You’re immeasurably smarter than that, Billeh. Of course you know I’m not talking about the specific – but instead, the collective. It’s just (insert thing here), coupled with (insert thing here), multiplied by (insert things here), until the landscape has changed. It’s methodical, intentional, and designed to erase even the hint of white privilege. Another farce, but that’s another story.
First off, nice win, right?
As for the above. Yeah, I know you were talking about the cumulative effect. But I was trying my best not to be a, um, nudge about it, so I just went after one of your examples. It’s been my experience, however, that the vast majority of right-wing media outrages just don’t withstand scrutiny. You probably feel the same exact way about the stuff we say on the left — as you mentioned when you said the threat of white supremacy, etc. etc. was wildly overstated by those left of center.
It’s likely one of those areas where we’re just not going to see eye to eye. I honestly don’t see any evidence of a left-wing conspiracy to undermine western civilization. Not anywhere — specifically or cumulatively.
That said, my own ideal, when it comes to all aspects of education in society, would be to teach it all and not take sides with any one part of the globe or another. Knowledge without borders. No home teams. A truly “cosmopolitan,” “citizen of the world” educational experience. You might see that as an attack on “western civilization.” But to me, it’s just the smartest way to achieve a really great education, and the broadest possible understanding of the world.
Don’t take sides. Teach it all. From north to south, east to west, and all points in between. No “team” to root for. We’re all humans and we should be educated as such.
Philosophically speaking, I see nation-states as fictions anyway. Money, capitalism, religion, too. Fictions — basically in the sense Yuval Harari describes in his TED talk, which I think is fascinating. And they haven’t been good fictions for the vast majority of humanity. We need to invent better ones.
That’s my take, anyway.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, X, for the correction. Much appreciated.
As for worldviews: Like everyone else, it’s complicated. But trying to boil it all down . . . To me, the most important thing is that everyone gets their shot in the here and now at maxing out on their life’s potential. And I mean literally everyone. I don’t think we should just accept the fact that we gotta have billions of human beings suffering and never, ever having that shot in order for a certain percentage at the top to get that shot. Our current system, however, is set up to do just that. And I find that profoundly immoral, irrational, tragic and indefensible.
So it’s “the fierce urgency of now” for me, and this colors pretty much everything else. It means I see our economic and political systems as cheating the majority of humanity out of their one and only chance at a real life. And, again, for the worst of reasons: to ensure that an arbitrarily lucky, chosen, ultra-select few can do as they please and have ten, a thousand, tens of thousands times more than they could possibly need to live a full and rich life.
Our system sets up a zero-sum life-sphere, and no matter how many times I hear someone say it’s not that way, the evidence strikes me as overwhelmingly contrary to that view. IMO, it’s just flat out self-evident and beyond debate, it’s so obvious. Math, logic, percentages and common sense all tell us it definitely is zero-sum.
So I passionately believe we need to replace our current systems — economic and political — with something that would facilitate the widest possible shot at full and rich lives for everyone, within the context of preserving our one and only home (earth). And, again, with no one being left out.
Another factor for me: I don’t believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation — though I’ve studied world religions like Buddhism and Hinduism which do. I think this is it. One and done. The future is now, as George Allen once said. So it makes no sense to me, whatsoever, that we should have a political or economic system that acts as if it’s okay to build up to something across generations, a wee bit at a time. And in the case of soft neoliberalism of the Dems, at a glacial pace. Our economy and politics need to be geared to maximize the lives of the living, not future lives that may never be . . . while at the same time doing everything we can to leave future generations with the same shot at the fullest of lives. As in, conserving the earth, our natural resources, ending wars, pollution, etc. etc.
More later. Got some things to add about various ironies regarding “collectivism versus individualism” as I see them.
Good to see you posting again, X.
WOW do we have a lot to discuss! I’d love to delve into all of this.
I’m gonna start making new threads now, based on specific topics (many of the above too).Thanks dude.
As the young kids used to say, kewl. Looking forward to the other threads, X.
Billy_TParticipantThe University of Pennsylvania, in its left-wing English department, has removed its long-standing portrait of William Shakespeare because he was white and male in favor of a more “diverse” writer. Is that not subtracting from Western civilization?
X, if I can jump in here for a moment — I know you were talking to Zooey, and not me — but the above scenario didn’t really happen as you describe (following your lead by only dealing with one thing, etc):
Students remove Shakespeare portrait from English Department at Ivy League school
excerpt:
At the University of Pennsylvania, the student newspaper reports that a group of students took down a large portrait of William Shakespeare, which had for years been displayed above a staircase in a building housing the English Department.
Why? According to the Daily Pennsylvanian, the students wanted the wall art in the department to represent the world’s diversity of authors, so they replaced Shakespeare on the Heyer Staircase with a photo of Audre Lorde, an African American writer, feminist and civil rights activist.
The Shakespeare portrait taken off the wall at the Ivy League school wound up in the office of Jed Esty, the English Department chairman and a professor of English. Esty, who, his website says, specializes in 20th Century British, Irish, and postcolonial literatures, wrote a Dec. 8 email to majors and minors in the English Department and shared it with the student newspaper. This is the email in full:
Some years ago, the Penn English faculty voted on a motion stating that we would like the FBH entryway to represent the full range of writers, texts, and media that we teach and study. We planned at that time to relocate the large Shakespeare portrait, but the effort stalled as we considered options for a suitable alternative in that public space. Late last week, following a town hall discussion in the department, some students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department. That commitment is shared by the faculty. After winter break, we will initiate an open and collaborative conversation among students, faculty, and employees in English to come up with a plan for that public space. In the meantime, someone has posted an image of the celebrated poet and activist Audre Lorde, and it will remain until we’ve arrived at a collective solution. The department will continue to explore, in all of our classes, the meaning of important works produced by artists and writers well before Shakespeare and well after Lorde, in several media and from across the globe. We invite everyone to join us in the task of critical thinking about the changing nature of authorship, the history of language, and the political life of symbols.
It’s just a portrait on a wall. I don’t see how it’s “subtracting from Western Civilization” to replace it with one of Audre Lorde, who, after all, is also a contributor to “Western Civilization.”
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantPA,
I loved Twilight Zone and his follow up with the Night Gallery. Kafka and Poe were major influences for Serling.
Have you seen Black Mirror? It’s on Netflix. Really, really well done.
https://www.netflix.com/title/70264888
Also, on horror stories: What’s your take on villains being sentient. It’s a must for me. I really can’t stand zombie stories, TV, movies, etc. etc. because there’s nothing behind the eyes. I want my suspense, thriller and horror stories to be about knowable conflicts, with at least human-like perceptions, with actual rationales for why villains and heroes do what they do. Motivations, etc. etc.
Just could never get into monster stories if they can’t “think.”
Billy_TParticipantIn principle, I don’t disagree. However, what impact would free public college have on the delivery system of higher education? Do you really think that top-down Government regulation of education would be efficient? Would it not be more beneficial to foster more entrepreneurship in higher education while giving all institutions a real stake in their students’ success? Also, should *everyone* be able to waste the resources of higher education? Aren’t there enough people who go to college for no other reason than to go, and don’t finish? Wouldn’t that particular problem be exacerbated with an open door policy?
I dunno about the first questions. I think those are the biggest ones that would need to be tackled.
As for the last questions, I think…maybe. However, I would counter that ignorance is a fairly significant problem, and an unfinished degree is probably still better for our civilization than a degree that was never started in the first place.
To me, public sector stuff should be “free.” As in, funded by taxes. We shouldn’t have to pay twice. And by making us pay twice, especially for things like education, we just guarantee the continuance of privilege and neck-breaking hierarchies, which is the root (IMO) of all of our problems to begin with.
Rather than dance around the issue with special grants and loans and such, we need to just kill the obstacle standing in the way of ANY citizen who wants to pursue higher education, trade-school, apprenticeships, artisanship, whatever. Our society profoundly benefits from the shattering of all barriers in that regard, so NO one is left behind and everyone has a chance to pursue their dreams.
In my view, making money the ticket is obscene. It’s a fiction, an arbitrary, invented fiction, that doesn’t exist in nature and shouldn’t ever, not once, not ever, be able to dictate the course of our lives.
But under the capitalist system it does, on an hourly basis. I just see that as profoundly immoral, destructive and, to be frank, insane.
Billy_TParticipantHey, X, hope all is well.
It looks to me like you’re engaging in the same thing you say the left does: painting with a broad brush, indicting everyone of a particular political view for the actions of a few. In your case, you even cite one personal encounter, as if that can be used as an indictment of the entire left.
“The left is out of control, plain and simple.”
Hey Billeh.
Yeah, you’re right. And I’ve corrected that. I would like to gain a better understanding of your world view and some of your beliefs, so I’ll refrain from doing that. The original article just rubbed me raw is all. My apologies.
As for your comment about white supremacy. Not following that at all. Are you saying “the left” made all of that up?
The evidence says right-wing extremist groups are on the rise:
I didn’t say they made it up. I said they made up the epidemic we’re apparently facing. I’m sure it has its ebbs and flows in terms of violent expression, but it’s not an epidemic as I’m led to believe through the media.
Thanks, X, for the correction. Much appreciated.
As for worldviews: Like everyone else, it’s complicated. But trying to boil it all down . . . To me, the most important thing is that everyone gets their shot in the here and now at maxing out on their life’s potential. And I mean literally everyone. I don’t think we should just accept the fact that we gotta have billions of human beings suffering and never, ever having that shot in order for a certain percentage at the top to get that shot. Our current system, however, is set up to do just that. And I find that profoundly immoral, irrational, tragic and indefensible.
So it’s “the fierce urgency of now” for me, and this colors pretty much everything else. It means I see our economic and political systems as cheating the majority of humanity out of their one and only chance at a real life. And, again, for the worst of reasons: to ensure that an arbitrarily lucky, chosen, ultra-select few can do as they please and have ten, a thousand, tens of thousands times more than they could possibly need to live a full and rich life.
Our system sets up a zero-sum life-sphere, and no matter how many times I hear someone say it’s not that way, the evidence strikes me as overwhelmingly contrary to that view. IMO, it’s just flat out self-evident and beyond debate, it’s so obvious. Math, logic, percentages and common sense all tell us it definitely is zero-sum.
So I passionately believe we need to replace our current systems — economic and political — with something that would facilitate the widest possible shot at full and rich lives for everyone, within the context of preserving our one and only home (earth). And, again, with no one being left out.
Another factor for me: I don’t believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation — though I’ve studied world religions like Buddhism and Hinduism which do. I think this is it. One and done. The future is now, as George Allen once said. So it makes no sense to me, whatsoever, that we should have a political or economic system that acts as if it’s okay to build up to something across generations, a wee bit at a time. And in the case of soft neoliberalism of the Dems, at a glacial pace. Our economy and politics need to be geared to maximize the lives of the living, not future lives that may never be . . . while at the same time doing everything we can to leave future generations with the same shot at the fullest of lives. As in, conserving the earth, our natural resources, ending wars, pollution, etc. etc.
More later. Got some things to add about various ironies regarding “collectivism versus individualism” as I see them.
Good to see you posting again, X.
Billy_TParticipantGood point about kid-characters. I’m tryin to think of the best performances by kids in films. Drawin a blank.
What is it you love about St.King’s books, Pa?
Is it fair to say he ‘avoids the subject of politics’ in his books? How would you describe the general politics in his stories? (seems to me, there’s a kind of…oh…”norman rockwell” quality to his stories. Yes? No?….it annoys me.)
w
vWV,
The most extraordinary film I’ve ever seen regarding kids is “Ponette.” I saw it only once, and would love to watch it again, but while watching it, I just couldn’t tell if the director let the kids freelance or if they were actually “acting.” It was too real. The actress playing Ponette seemed like she was from another world. An angel, with a profoundly old soul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponette
Ponette is a 1996 French film directed by Jacques Doillon. The film centers on four-year-old Ponette (Victoire Thivisol), who is coming to terms with the death of her mother. The film received acclaim for Thivisol’s performance, who was only four at the time of filming.
September 10, 2017 at 10:45 am in reply to: Article with interesting premise: neoliberal Dems are the real "Alt-left". #74013Billy_TParticipantSome more riffs from the article:
In general, centrist Dems appear to want to reduce discriminatory practices against blacks and other minorities in our judicial, carceral systems. To even things up, etc. But, to me, they reject the idea of really getting at the root of it, because they’re locked into the idea of equalizing groups within an oppressive system, rather than ending the oppressive system itself.
As in, you could end all racially discriminatory practices within the penal system, and still have truly odious, ugly, evil and oppressive stuff happen to the innocent across the board. The far better way to go, IMO, is shut down the ability of that system to inflect harm on ANYONE. That takes care of oppression toward racial, ethnic and sexual minorities at the same time. The same can not be said if we simply try to ensure a kind of equality of oppression.
To get a bit more specific: Legalize all non-violent, victimless “crime.” Empty our jails of everyone under that umbrella. End the jailing of anyone who once would have been thrown in jail for that set of actions. In that case, you would no longer have racial discrimination in play regarding the wildly unequal harassment, arrest and conviction rates, or the length of the sentences — in those particular cases. No one would go to jail for those things (drugs, basic “vice squad” stuff), so you can’t have systemic racism in effect for that particular kind of “crime.” It’s no longer a crime to begin with, etc.
Same thing goes in the broader economic realm. Instead of trying to make our neck-breaking hierarchies better reflect the diversity of America, instead of making the people within the various tiers of Haves and Have nots better reflect it . . . let’s get rid of the neck-breaking hierarchies altogether. Let’s make it illegal from the getgo for a society to sort itself into the Haves and Have nots.
Doing that takes care of the racial crap too. If you no longer have ANY “have nots,” you immediately do away with the foundation for oppression, which, under the system of capitalism, is predominantly economic in nature. You defang racism and other pathologies/bigotries, and you deal with them in the most realistic and effective manner. As in, we can’t police hearts and minds — nor should we want to. But we CAN take away the power of racists and other bigots from inflicting their warped views on others.
IMO, our focus should be on power, not attitudes. Though, I think it’s also self-evident that a truly egalitarian society would change attitudes over time a hell of a lot more effectively than our current steeply hierarchical system.
Billy_TParticipantPA,
Thanks for the review. I’m not a big horror movie fan. I find life plenty horrific enough and would rather escape into a different kind of movie-world. But I do make exceptions. If a horror film has a really interesting rationale behind, if the intellectual motivations for the horrors are layered, nuanced and creative, include mythic elements, etc. etc. . . . and if it surprises, I can enjoy it. “The Witches” had some of that going on. I actually liked that film.
Last night, I finally watched “Hidden Figures” (on HBO). Very late to that party, but, wow!! Easily one of the best movies I’ve seen in years and years. If I go by your 1-10 scale, it gets a 10. The only thing keeping it from being off the charts, all-time classic, etc. etc. . . . it didn’t really push new boundaries as far as film-making goes. It didn’t have to, of course. The subject matter, acting and direction were great as is.
Based on a true story about black women — focuses on three geniuses — working for NASA in the early 1960s. A still segregated Virginia. Made me so angry to watch the racism in play, but the movie is also big-time uplifting in depicting their battle against all odds.
Highly, highly recommend “Hidden Figures.”
Billy_TParticipantHi X. Always good to see you on the boards. I have missed your posts.
As for politix, we disagree on a lot of stuff, obviously. But i can tell you this — nobody on ‘this’ board thinks all Trump supporters are racists/fascists. We (this little board) know (and have talked about and agreed) that there are different factions that make up the Trump core. Several different factions. The neonazis are just one faction among others.
Plenty of nonfascist Conservatives like you also preferred Trump.
You are respected here, X. But we are leftists (Bernie types, Jill Stein types) (not Democrats), so we disagree with you on a lot of your politix.Lets hope Goff has the right stuff :>)
w
vWV,
Agreed. I wish X would post more.
I think you sum up stuff pretty well above.
Billy_TParticipantIt’s not a matter of looking at selective ‘sites’ to get a perspective of how out-of-whack the number of these Antifa fucks are in comparison to neonazis, or the KKK, or racists, or Supremacists, or whatever else we Conservatives are now. I’m not a fan of White Supremacists either, but let’s not pretend they’re suddenly some huge organization that benefited from Trump being elected President by having their ranks swell exponentially via the awakening of dormant supporters (which is what the media is leading people to believe). Their numbers are miniscule in comparison to the population. Antifa, on the other hand, isn’t some club you can join. It’s a movement consisting of members from all walks of life who don’t possess the intellectual capacity to differentiate between Conservatism and pure, unadulterated hate groups. And for that, I blame the education system. Specifically Universities. The shit young adults are being taught now is negligent.
Talk about the need for border security – you’re a racist.
Talk about the need for a stronger military – you’re an imperialist.
Talk about the decline of morality – you’re a religious zealot (and intolerant)
Dispute the claim that global warming is indisputable – you’re a moron.
Failure to acknowledge income inequality – you’re privileged (horeshit)
You’re white? Holy shit are you evil.
and so on, and so on.I don’t expect you (or 99% of this board) to acknowledge that the left is destroying Western Civilization. It’s only my opinion based on the way I see things unfolding now (and over the past decade). But I do expect some of you to acknowledge that this whole “White Supremacy” thing is WAYYYYYY overblown, and only became a dangerous threat about 8 months ago. And again, for no other reason than it was suggested and/or conjured. Not because it’s any more prevalent than it was 8 years ago.
Above, I provide links showing that, yes, right-wing hate groups and extremism, including white supremacy groups are on the rise. I don’t think anyone on the left claims this just suddenly started to happen with Trump’s victory. The rise goes back further in time than that, and seems to coincide with Democrats winning the White House. But it is a fact that neo-nazi, neo-fascist and other “alt-right” groups DO feel emboldened by his victory. They’ve said so themselves. In public. They proudly say they have one of their own in the White House now, and their far more vocal and public appearances are a result of Trump’s ascendancy.
Again, they say this themselves. The racist cretins who organized the “unite the right” march in C’ville said this, etc.
Beyond that . . . are you being snarkastic with the comment in bold? If not, could you elaborate?
Billy_TParticipantDisagree.
One group expresses their right to free speech (not exclusive to neonazis).
The other group terrorizes anyone who expresses their right to free speech.There’s a reason Trump supporters are being attacked, and it’s not because they’re freaking Nazis. It’s because they dare to show their allegiance to the President in public. The same holds true for speakers like Milo (don’t agree with his provocateur nature), Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, Nicholas Dirks, Action Bronson, John Brennan, Janet Mock, etc. Even if you don’t agree with their talking points, violently attacking their supporters, intimidating them, blocking them from attending speaking engagements, disinviting them from speaking, disrupting their lectures, and coddling/counseling the “victims” of their very existence is flat ridiculous. It’s also bullyism. A prime example is pummeling someone with a “no hate” sign. lol. Idiots.
White Supremacy is no more prevalent today than it was 8 years ago. It did, however, become an epidemic in the mold of The Plague of Justinian as soon as the left spoke it into existence. I, myself, have already been called a racist and a Nazi for absolutely no other reason than being a conservative. Five more minutes in that “discussion”, and it would have come to blows (out of self-defense). I walked away, because I wasn’t going to give them what they wanted.
The left is out of control, plain and simple.
Hey, X, hope all is well.
It looks to me like you’re engaging in the same thing you say the left does: painting with a broad brush, indicting everyone of a particular political view for the actions of a few. In your case, you even cite one personal encounter, as if that can be used as an indictment of the entire left.
“The left is out of control, plain and simple.”
In reality, there is no evidence to support this. There is, however, evidence that a very small number of people — they number in the dozens, and not more than that — are physically confronting right-wingers they see as fascist. And from my experience and observation, “antifa” is actually pretty good at differentiating between nazis and regular old conservatives, and the majority of that very, very small and scattered group only acts in self-defense. A fraction of antifa goes on the offense. This was attested to by clergy in Charlottesville, for instance:
As for your comment about white supremacy. Not following that at all. Are you saying “the left” made all of that up?
The evidence says right-wing extremist groups are on the rise:
Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says By KIM SEVERSONMARCH 7, 2012
For starters . . .
September 9, 2017 at 6:25 pm in reply to: Article with interesting premise: neoliberal Dems are the real "Alt-left". #73973Billy_TParticipantThe gradualism, the cowardly baby steps of the centrists, just pisses me off so much. In no other realm of life do we act this way. When we see a problem, we do our best to find an actual solution for it and implement the entire solution all at once, if we can. Engineering, IT, medicine, scientific, even artistic dilemmas.
A system failure doesn’t generally receive a fraction of a partial fix, stretched out over time. If a solution can be found, it’s done all at once, and as quickly as its urgency demands.
We have a host of frighteningly awful problems in need of immediate solutions. It’s never made the least bit of sense to choose baby steps and watered down mush in the face of critical, life and death matters.
My view of the real left is that we locate the problem, analyze the situation realistically, and come up with solutions that make further attention unnecessary. The center and the right tend to be just fine with a glacial pace or no fix at all.
Billy_TParticipantAgree with PA and Zooey here.
She needs to go away. She was a terrible candidate, ran a terrible campaign, was cold, aloof and entitled in public, and her policy ideas were warmed over centrist mush. She and the Dems lost primarily because of that, and because they abandoned the working class in the early 1970s, choosing instead to battle the GOP for Big Money donors.
They’ve counted on identity politics (rhetoric over substance) to maintain an advantage over the GOP, but with Trump, they found their match with a different kind of identity politics (for white folks), and Trump tapped into economic issues the Dems ignored. Were Trump and the GOP ever, ever going to help the very people who voted for them? Obviously not. It was all snake oil and gussied up hard neoliberalism to the Dems’s soft version. But he talked the talk and his people bought it.
Only way for the Dems to come back is for them to take economic inequality seriously, attack it vigorously and without apology. I don’t see them doing this, unless the party is taken over by the Bernie wing. It looks like Clinton is still trying to prevent that.
September 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm in reply to: Article with interesting premise: neoliberal Dems are the real "Alt-left". #73970Billy_TParticipantDACA is a case in point, along the lines suggested by the author. Neoliberal Dems, among others, see Trump’s action to undo it as some grave humanitarian crime, but still accept the idea of DACA itself. Clearly, Trump is doing this to pander to his white nationalist fan base, and it’s despicable for that reason.
However, Obama’s act itself was largely chickenshit in the first place. Notice what DACA stands for: Deferred Action. It creates a form of purgatory for the innocent, and never actually gets rid of the threat of deportation. Beyond that, it’s a fraction of the total undocumented population (800K out of 12 million).
The real answer here, the one that strikes me as the most just, humane and rational, is to grant full and complete amnesty to all undocumented peoples, empty out all of our detention centers (cough, concentration camps), offer everyone a clear path to citizenship, and close the books on them. No more following them around. No more spying on them. They’re citizens now, with full rights.
Using the author’s dissenting terminology, the “alt-left” view is to put a bandaid on the issue, kicking the can down the road, instead of actually solving it. The real left would just say, amnesty and full rights and be done with it.
Perhaps instead of “alt-left,” it should be faux-left? The DLC folks. The Clintonians, etc.
Billy_TParticipantWell, i wasnt raising the Corbett issue, BT. Corbett didnt talk about the ‘sheepdip’ thing. An ex CIA guy did. Corbett was just quoting him.
Corbett is a separate issue. I dunno what i think of Corbett. I dont dismiss him the way you do, though. I know he’s ‘out there’ on some issues, but i think he’s good on other issues (corporate power, for example).
But again, i dont buy into Corbett’s theory about McVeigh, but I am simply pointing to that one quote on ‘sheepdipping’ by the CIA guy.
w
vFair enough. Sorry if I come across as a nudge on this stuff. I come back and reread what I’ve written, and then your responses, and feel guilty about bringing it up at all. I guess I’m just seeing a lot of “crazy” out there these days, and I’m reacting to it. Probably not the right place to do that, cuz you just want to bring new things into the discussion — stuff that is rarely talked about.
Anyway . . . yeah, that sheep-dipping thing is deeply disturbing. I’ve always loved espionage thrillers — when they’re fiction. But I’m not at all thrilled when it’s reality. It should remain in the realm of the novel, film or TV drama.
You’re right. A culture of lies.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
All of us are seeking the truth. We all have our own ways of getting there. And who’s to say which pathway is the “right” one, blah blah blah. You know the drill. But, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Corbett doesn’t help anyone in that search.
He’s a crackpot believer in Pizzagate, a 9/11 Truther, and connected with Alex Jones and infowars.
Yes, the government lies to us all the time, and hides stuff from us all the time, especially about corporate control of government, the military, the MIC and our Intel “community.” But the answer to those lies isn’t more lies and wild conspiracy theories from online hacks. To me, it just makes it that much harder to cut through the fog. It adds a new layer of hair’s on fire absurdity on top of the lies and hidden nature in question.
Just my take. But we can do a hell of a lot better than folks like Corbett.
Billy_TParticipantMy problem with that kind of view/(defense) of the CIA, is that nowhere in that recording did he say “the United States has no RIGHT to be interfering in other nations elections, etc…” He’s still a true-believer. He thinks there can be a ‘Good’ CIA.
My own view is there can never be a ‘good’ CIA in a corporate-capitalist system anymore than there can be a ‘good’ mega-corporation in a corporate-capitalist-system.
A secret, powerful, spy agency that lies to the public on a regular basis, is never gonna be a ‘good’ thing, in my view. Just my opinion. I think the CIA will always poison democracy.
w
vThe way you feel about the CIA? I feel that way about capitalism. I see no “good” kind possible and it’s always going to be based on lies. To me, the foundation and its internal logic are profoundly immoral, irrational and unnatural and inevitably lead to horrific results — well-known, too easily dismissed or hidden from view. I also think — and this is similar to the CIA and other secret intel groups — most people in the “developed” world just don’t see its atrocities, cuz they’re not always in their backyards.
That said, what would you replace the CIA with? Because in a world with one global empire of Capital, and a wide range of monstrous ideologies seeking power or payback, you’re going to need entities capable of preventing threats from materializing. And I’m talking about threats against innocent civilians, who generally take the brunt of these attacks. What is your view regarding prevention?
Billy_TParticipantAnd more importantly, the adversary of the Russian people themselves, which is something that also deserves attention too.
I think from the point of view of state to state dynamics, yeah, the Russian state is our adversary. But we should never, ever forget that the people aren’t the state.
I hope it’s clear we said the exact same thing there.
That is–one reason (among others) we should oppose the Putin state is because he himself is an adversary of the Russian people. So we agree on that.
Honest, what I would like to see more of in this ongoing issue is some stuff from actual Russian leftists opposed to the Putin state.
…
I agree. Putin is the enemy of the Russian people. I think our two-party structure also goes heavily against the interests of the vast majority of this country, and we have our own forms of state-on-citizen violence too. And I’m guessing that’s a big part of WV’s point. But the degree of violence isn’t the same, nor is the degree to which the two states rip off the people.
While both do, Putin and his fellow Russian oligarchs have taken this to a whole new level. It’s reported he’s managed to hoard roughly 200 billion in wealth, while being — as far as we know — a “public servant” his entire adult life.
The everyday corruption of American pols is just dwarfed by the scale occurring in Russia, which pretty much started as soon as the Soviet Union fell in 1991. Some 15 million Russians died as a result of the switch from state capitalism — they never had actual socialism — to its warp-speed, kleptocratic neoliberalism.
As for Russian leftists now. Yes. I’d love to read their views. Would have to search for them. It’s much easier to find their writings from the late 19th to early 20th century. The vast majority of them opposed the Bolsheviks and would have condemned the neoliberal kleptocrats even more.
Billy_TParticipantYes they are your adversary. If looked at logically, absolutely. And more importantly, the adversary of the Russian people themselves, which is something that also deserves attention too.
It;’s the RUSSIAN line that they are simply these reactive pawns in an American/Nato game. One of the massively disappointing things to me about the left in the last few years is how many of them swallow that Russian line. It’s not real. It;’s just successful propaganda.
And then many act like you have to choose. BS. Listen to Russian leftists. Anyone not doing that does not know this issue. And I will stand by that statement, for very good reasons.
..,.
I think all of us here would argue that the Russia people are not our adversary. That’s implied. This is about the “state.” A state to state matter. It’s kinda like the obviously justified and heavy condemnation of Likud having nothing to do with Jews as a people.
My own belief is . . . and it’s really difficult to express this without sounding pretentious or pie in the sky . . . but I see myself as a citizen of the world, not of any one nation. I don’t believe in the fiction of national borders. It doesn’t exist for Capital and capitalists; why should it exists for the rest of us?
That said, the role of government should be to improve the lives of its citizenry, first and foremost. I’d add that any wealthy nation should also share its wealth with the world and improve the lot of the human population across the board to the degree possible. But it’s logical to assume it should start within the nation first. Otherwise, we might as well just go to a Star Trek world government form . . . which would be my preference anyway . . . but I also realize we need a coupla more generations at least to be able to handle that kind of enlightened response.
Bottom line: I think from the point of view of state to state dynamics, yeah, the Russian state is our adversary. But we should never, ever forget that the people aren’t the state.
Billy_TParticipantPS – I think Trumps Domestic Policies are worse than any President in my lifetime.
I’m not sure i know what his foreign policies even ‘are’ so I dunno about them.
His environmental policies alone are enough to make him the worst President in history, i would think.
w
vI agree with all of that. But we do know a few things about his foreign policy, as ad hoc as it seems to be:
1. He has publicly called for the invasion of Venezuela, and has increased the sanctions regime already in place.
2. He came close to provoking a nuclear war with NK, which still isn’t resolved. He talked about bringing “fire and fury” to them the likes of which the world has never seen.
3. He loosened the “rules of engagement” in all our war theaters, because he actually believes “PC” is handcuffing our troops. The numbers of dead civilians have gone up drastically since he gave that order.
4. He threatened to invade Mexico — on the phone with its president — if they didn’t shut down the cartels.
5. He has threatened regime change in Iran, and constantly rattles his saber at that part of the world.
6. He reversed Obama’s (admittedly all too moderate) attempt at detente with Cuba, and upped the sanctions.
7. He has praised brutal dictators around the world, like Duterte in the Philippines and the Saudi royal house.
Just off the top of my head . . .
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV. That looks like the biopic is going to be a classic.
Van Gogh is my favorite artist, all time. It was overwhelming for me to visit some of the places he lived when I went to France in 2007. Especially Arles. Took a picture of the Night Cafe, and the little asylum where he stayed during one of his “episodes.” Walked the streets he walked. Saw what he saw. Monet and others, too. But Van Gogh was the height for me.
This website has all of his letters, translated into English and annotated. Plus biographical info, etc.
The site for the letters is connected to the Van Gogh museum — as far as I know:
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantWhen I step back and try to go meta with this . . . it can sometimes include what we do here, or in other forums, or in bars, or at parties. Human interaction is, of course, “complex” much of the time. “It’s complicated,” as we hear so often from various sages.
Then, again, I think a lot of it boils down to us just wanting the other person, or other people, to be as outraged as we are by X, Y or Z. Or, in our better moments, to love this or that piece of art, this or that landscape, this or that song, or book or poem. Confirmation that others see things along the same lines — good, great, bad, mediocre and horrific, etc. That others see what we see, love what we love and so on.
I know I’m at my best when that search is about the arts, in a Wu Wei mode, unforced. And I’m at my worst when it’s about politics. I need to keep that knowledge in the front-most room of my brain, not the backrooms where it sometimes wanders and loses itself.
Anyway, hope all is well, WV. Time to get back to the novel.
Billy_TParticipantTo make a long story short, WV . . . It’s just not close. No other candidate/president comes within light years of the amount of lying or the endless trail of shady business practices or outright corruption. No other candidate/president comes within light years of so many close ties to a foreign adversary, or has sought to protect them to such a degree.
To me, it’s one thing to say a pox on all of their houses, which I do. But there’s also such a thing as being demonstrably worse than all the other crooked pols, and Trump is in the White House right now. They aren’t.
Billy_TParticipantBT i have a different view of all this Russia/Trump stuff. Or maybe I should put it this way — i have a shitload of questions.
One of my questions would be how many other bigtime politicians have had contacts with representatives of other nations during campaigns? Israel for example. How many candidates have sucked up to Israel during and after their campaigns? Hillary? Obama? Bush? Reagan? All of em? Why isnt There a drumbeat about THAT in the NY-Times and Wash-post?
That would be just one of my questions. I have a gazillion that have to do with ‘context’ of all these Russia questions.
w
vI think the main difference between past and present is this, aside from the ginormous number of lies. And we’ve never seen even a fraction of that before Trump:
Trump could not get loans from the vast majority of banks outside of Russia. He was — and still is — in deep debt. His connections with Russia entail the Russian Mob, and he has a history with the Mob here. He desperately needed Russian money prior to the election, during the election and now, and he has shown since the election that he won’t criticize Putin or Russia for its attempts to expand its empire, and keeps fighting against any sanctions. He’s also given them classified intel, after kicking out American media from the Oval Office.
That’s the quid pro quo Russia was looking for. They cultivated Trump and his business associates going back decades, and saw in Trump someone they could use. And there’s no doubt they have.
There is just no comparison between Trump’s massive debts/connection to Russia and any previous candidate/president and any other nation. One might argue that’s because we’ve never had someone who had such a huge corporation, family owned or not. But, to me, that can’t be used an excuse. It should in fact be a major lesson for this country. Just don’t elect someone with massive business interests all around the world, especially when they refuse to give them up. There is simply no way on earth anyone can build up businesses that widespread without corrupt practices — and he’s gone bankrupt six times.
Yes, by all means, every candidate should be scrutinized for their foreign ties. But Trump is sui generis.
Billy_TParticipantWhat do you think about this, WV? CIA internal conflicts, mostly due to worries about its head, Mike Pompeo, being a Trump loyalist and possibly working to protect him from the investigation.
This falls into your bucket of “who do we choose to believe?”
At CIA, a watchful eye on Mike Pompeo, the president’s ardent ally
Excerpt:“People have to watch him,” said a U.S. official who, like others, requested anonymity to speak frankly. “It’s almost as if he can’t resist the impulse to be political.”
A second former CIA official cited a “real concern for interference and politicization,” saying that the worry among some at the agency is “that if you were passing on something too dicey [to Pompeo] he would go to the White House with it.”
Pompeo has attributed his direct supervision of the counterintelligence center to a desire to place a greater emphasis on preventing leaks and protecting classified secrets — core missions of the center that are also top priorities for Trump.
It’s can be a truly crazy dynamic when political appointees, who run these agencies, are at (obvious and perhaps irreconcilable) odds with the rank and file. The appointees are typically trained at spin. The rank and file aren’t. Either way, when it comes to Trump and Russia, they seem to have vastly different interests.
Billy_TParticipantThe most recent revelations, not yet included on the Bill Moyers timeline include:
Top Trump Organization executive asked Putin aide for help on business deal
and the revelations about Felix Sater:
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — A business associate of President Trump promised in 2015 to engineer a real estate deal with the aid of the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, that he said would help Mr. Trump win the presidency.
The associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin. He predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would highlight Mr. Trump’s savvy negotiating skills and be a political boon to his candidacy.
“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantSo…..what was the plan to get through the wall if the Night King hadn’t conveniently just captured a dragon?
Night King: “Okay boys we will get on each others shoulders…thus creating a ladder…Three Stooges style, and one by one we will climb up and over until enough guys can capture the wall and open it for the others. Unless, of course someone is stupid enough to give us a dragon. Then, we will obviously use its blue fire to melt the damn thing. But don’t hold your breath on that one guys. Just get ready to climb.”
And one other thing: Cerci has a strategy to just let the others fight the Night King and army of the dead and hope they win but are left devastated? If they don’t win what is her plan? To battle them herself? And use the elephants?
It all looks very cool. I enjoy it. But the show feels more like a SYFY channel production these days.
Now we wait two years.
The books talk about a horn that can knock down the wall. Perhaps they would have gotten it to him somehow. There was also speculation that ice dragons lived inside the wall. Much bigger than Dany’s dragons. More magical, too. Some speculation as to the horn perhaps awakening those ice dragons. The show runners might have made it happen that way, if not for Viserion.
I was thinking last night after the episode . . . Euron mentioned it. Why not just leave Westeros entirely. Apparently, the wights can’t cross the water, so if they had a complete evacuation of that “continent,” then the White Walkers and the wights can’t add to their army. They’d have no one to kill.
Then I thought, but the Night King has a dragon now, so he could follow the expats wherever they may flee. And, just because the wights can’t swim, who’s to say they couldn’t cross on boats? Kinda like the Dothraki’s dilemma.
Anyway . . . the setup is contradictory, in a sense. And you almost don’t want them to try to attack the zombies with dragons again. Isn’t that too big a risk to lose the other two, and tens of thousands of their soldiers?
I’ve never liked zombies as a plot device. I want both sides of a conflict to be sentient, to have serious motives, to grow as characters. Any show with zombies as the main villains — luckily, that’s not GOT — has a problem, AFAIC. Too one-sided in figuring out traits, histories, motivations, moral centers, etc. I hope the show runners don’t turn this into just a Westeros against the Night King deal. It’s just far less interesting to me than human against human battles.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
